HOYLE v. VAN HORN


236 Or. 205 (1963)

387 P.2d 985

HOYLE v. VAN HORN

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Affirmed December 24, 1963.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Eldon F. Caley, Roseburg, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Long, Neuner, Dole & Caley, Roseburg.

Edward M. Murphy, Roseburg, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Yates & Murphy and Spencer W. Yates, Roseburg.

Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN and DENECKE, Justices.


AFFIRMED.

SLOAN, J.

Plaintiff, a pedestrian, was injured when he was struck by defendant's truck. In this resulting action plaintiff was awarded a verdict and judgment. Defendant appeals. The appeal challenges rulings of the trial court in response to an effort of plaintiff's counsel, during argument to the jury, to suggest a "per diem" amount of damages for plaintiff's alleged pain and suffering. However, the assignments brought here are such that it is not...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases