Opinion · Court of Appeals of Oregon
Schulze v. Burlington Northern Inc.
Schulze v. Burlington N. Inc., 43 Or. App. 485 (Or. Ct. App. 1979)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Oregon
- Jurisdiction
- Oregon
- Date
- 1979-12-03
- Topic
- litigation
PER CURIAM The only issue which warrants discussion concerns i instruction requested by defendant, but not given, uring oral argument defendant acknowledged that ie second sentence of the two-sentence instruction as ambiguous, if not misleading, and in any event ould have required modification prior to its being ¡ad to the jury. Defendant argues that it was never-eless reversible error for the trial court not to give ie first sentence. We know of no Oregon law that says at it is the duty of a trial judge to dissect a requested struction and give it after discarding defective parts. Affirmed.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Schulze v. Burlington Northern Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 2 opinions
The only issue which warrants discussion concerns i instruction requested by defendant, but not given, uring oral argument defendant acknowledged that ie second sentence of the two-sentence instruction as ambiguous, if not misleading, and in any event ould have required modification prior to its being ¡ad to the jury. Defendant argues that it was never-eless reversible error for the trial court not to give ie first sentence. We know of no Oregon law that says at it is the duty of a trial judge to dissect a requested struction and give it after discarding defective parts.
Affirmed.