1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 15 P.3d
  5. 15 P.3d 588 (2000)
 

SHOUP v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

(97C-14504; CA A106153)

15 P.3d 588 (2000)

171 Or. App. 357

Mable SHOUP, Respondent, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided December 13, 2000.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Steven M. Lippold, Salem, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

J. Michael Alexander, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Swanson, Lathen, Alexander & McCann, P.C.

Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM and BREWER, Judges.

HASELTON, P.J.

Defendant Wal-Mart appeals from an adverse judgment in a personal injury action. Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erroneously submitted a deficient specification of negligence to the jury; and (2) because the jury rendered a general verdict, defendant is entitled to a new trial under the "we can't tell" rule of Whinston v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, 309 Or. 350, 357, 788 P.2d 428

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