State v. Ausplund

Oregon Supreme Court

State v. Ausplund

171 P. 395, 87 Or. 649

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 12, 1918

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 171 P. 395 (State v. Ausplund) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Ausplund, 171 P. 395, 87 Or. 649 (Or. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Benson

delivered the opinion of the court.

Counsel for defendant has presented an exceedingly vigorous argument for a rehearing based upon the contention that affidavits of jurors offered for the purpose of impeaching their verdict ought to be considered by the court upon a motion for a new trial. However, nothing is said therein that has not had very serious consideration of this court upon several occasions and yet we have not been able to arrive at a conclusion which would reverse the doctrine announced in Cline v. Broy, 1 Or. 89, and consistently followed ever since. Nothing can be added at this time to the original opinion herein, to which we adhere. The petition is denied. Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.

Mr. 'Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice Harris concur.

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

Mr. Justice Benson

delivered the opinion of the court.

Counsel for defendant has presented an exceedingly vigorous argument for a rehearing based upon the contention that affidavits of jurors offered for the purpose of impeaching their verdict ought to be considered by the court upon a motion for a new trial. However, nothing is said therein that has not had very serious consideration of this court upon several occasions and yet we have not been able to arrive at a conclusion which would reverse the doctrine announced in Cline v. Broy, 1 Or. 89, and consistently followed ever since. Nothing can be added at this time to the original opinion herein, to which we adhere. The petition is denied. Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.

Mr. 'Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice Harris concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 P. 395, 87 Or. 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ausplund-or-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack