Vancil v. Poulson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• deciding under predecessor statute to ORCP 63A that a motion for judgment n.o.v. may not be granted upon grounds not previously asserted in motion for directed verdict
• stating that purpose of rule is “to give the trial court the opportunity to rule upon the particular issue and to apprise one’s opponent what particular deficiency of proof is asserted”
• grounds asserted in motion for JNOV must have been raised in preceding motion for directed verdict
• “[a]ppellate courts should not decide new issues upon which the trial court had no opportunity to rule”
• “Appellate courts should not decide new issues upon which the trial court had no opportunity to rule.”
• objection that “there is not sufficient evidence here to go to the jury” was not sufficient to raise specific ground

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).