Smith v. Terminal Transfer, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Smith v. Terminal Transfer, Inc.

658 P.2d 579, 61 Or. App. 739, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 2433

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 16, 1983

DocketA80 02 01083; CA A22215

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 658 P.2d 579 (Smith v. Terminal Transfer, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Terminal Transfer, Inc., 658 P.2d 579, 61 Or. App. 739, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 2433 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question in this personal injury case is whether the trial court erred in not giving three Uniform Jury Instructions requested by plaintiff. The portion of the record before us on appeal does not contain a transcript of the portion of the proceedings in which the trial court instructed the jury. Therefore, we cannot tell what instructions were given and what instructions were not, or whether those requested and refused were covered by those that were given. When an appellant does not designate a record that is adequate for review, we must affirm the judgment appealed from if the pleadings are sufficient to support it. Reeder v. Kay, 276 Or 1111, 557 P2d 673 (1976); H.N.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Hamilton, 49 Or App 613, 621 P2d 57 (1980).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The question in this personal injury case is whether the trial court erred in not giving three Uniform Jury Instructions requested by plaintiff. The portion of the record before us on appeal does not contain a transcript of the portion of the proceedings in which the trial court instructed the jury. Therefore, we cannot tell what instructions were given and what instructions were not, or whether those requested and refused were covered by those that were given. When an appellant does not designate a record that is adequate for review, we must affirm the judgment appealed from if the pleadings are sufficient to support it. Reeder v. Kay, 276 Or 1111, 557 P2d 673 (1976); H.N.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Hamilton, 49 Or App 613, 621 P2d 57 (1980).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

658 P.2d 579, 61 Or. App. 739, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 2433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-terminal-transfer-inc-orctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack