1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 437 P.3d
  5. 437 P.3d 1107 (2019)
 

VASQUEZ v. DOUBLE PRESS MFG., INC.

(CC 110302844) (SC S065574).

437 P.3d 1107 (2019)

364 Or. 609

Zeferino VASQUEZ, Respondent on Review, v. DOUBLE PRESS MFG., INC., a California corporation, Petitioner on Review.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

April 4, 2019.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Janet M. Schroer , Hart Wagner LLP, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner on review. Also on the briefs were Ruth C. Rocker and Jonathan W. Henderson , Davis Rothwell Earle & Xochihua, PC.

Kathryn H. Clarke , Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for the respondent on review. Also on the brief were Mark McDougal and Gregory Kafoury .

Brad S. Daniels , Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae Direct Selling Association.

Julie A. Smith , Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae McInnis Waste Systems, Inc.

Susan Marmaduke and J. Aaron Landau , Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P.C., Portland, filed the briefs for amicus curiae Oregon Liability Reform Coalition. Also on the briefs was Sharon A. Rudnick .

Hillary A. Taylor , Keating Jones Hughes, PC, Portland, filed the briefs for amici curiae Oregon Medical Association, American Medical Association, and Oregon Association of Defense Counsel.

Travis Eiva , Eugene, filed the brief for amicus curiae Oregon Jury Project.

James S. Coon , Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost, Portland, Nadia Dahab , Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter, PC, Portland, and W. Eugene Hallman , Hallman Law Office, Pendleton, filed the brief for amicus curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.

Before Walters, Chief Justice, and Balmer, Nakamoto, Duncan, and Nelson, Justices, and Kistler and Landau, Senior Justices pro tempore.

Defendant Double Press Manufacturing, Inc. seeks review of a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming a trial court judgment against defendant that included an award of noneconomic damages to plaintiff in the amount of $4,860,000. Defendant contends that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the remedy clause of Article I...

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