Fang v. Li

6 Citing cases

  1. Stavrum v. Tudor

    296 Or. App. 534 (Or. Ct. App. 2019)

    On review of a motion for directed verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—here, defendant—to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g. , Fang v. Li , 203 Or. App. 481, 484-85, 125 P.3d 832 (2005). In that light, the loan that defendant made to plaintiff by check on June 6, 2013, was not discharged in plaintiff’s bankruptcy because it arose after plaintiff filed his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.

  2. Hernandez-Nolt v. Wash. Cnty.

    283 Or. App. 633 (Or. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Because this case is on appeal from a grant of directed verdict to the county, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—in this case, plaintiff—and give that party the benefit of every reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence. Fang v. Li , 203 Or.App. 481, 484, 125 P.3d 832 (2005). In taking that review, we do not weigh conflicting evidence or evaluate credibility.

  3. Currier v. Washman, LLC

    366 P.3d 811 (Or. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    We do not weigh conflicting evidence or evaluate credibility when reviewing the record. Fang v. Li, 203 Or App 481, 485, 125 P3d 832 (2005). "A directed verdict is appropriate only if there is a complete absence of proof on an essential issue or when there is no conflict in the evidence and it is susceptible of only one construction."

  4. Son v. Ashland Comm. Healthcare Serv

    239 Or. App. 495 (Or. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 38 times
    Recognizing professional malpractice as "a form of negligence" and therefore a context in which a comparative-fault defense may be raised

    We do not weigh conflicting evidence or evaluate credibility when reviewing the record. Fang v. Li, 203 Or. App. 481, 485, 125 P.3d 832 (2005). Accordingly, we look to the record in this case to determine whether there is any evidence to support the jury's assignment of comparative fault to Sara for her "failure to tell."

  5. Ballard v. City of Albany

    221 Or. App. 630 (Or. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that excessive force during an arrest can give rise to battery claim

    In reviewing the ruling, the court "is not to weigh conflicting evidence or evaluate credibility." Fang v. Li, 203 Or App 481, 485, 125 P3d 832 (2005) (quoting City of Medford v. Herbison, 57 Or App 496, 500, 645 P2d 563, rev den, 293 Or 394 (1982)). As pertinent to this assignment of error, plaintiff's second amended complaint alleged that OSP was negligent:

  6. State v. Stalder

    205 Or. App. 126 (Or. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that a sentence is both unlawfully excessive and unlawfully indeterminate if the term of incarceration and term of PPS taken together are greater than the statutory maximum regardless whether the court inserts a qualification stating that the actual term served will not exceed the maximum

    The problem is, the judgment does not say that defendant's combined sentence shall not be less than 60 months, it says that defendant's combined sentence shall not exceed 60 months. See Fang v. Li, 203 Or App 481, 484, 125 P3d 832 (2005) ("As a rule, `when a written judgment and oral ruling conflict, the trial court's decision is governed by the signed [judgment], regardless of the evidence of the judge's contrary intent.'"). As a result, the effect of the judgment is to sentence defendant to an indefinite period of PPS of 20 to 24 months, depending on the length of defendant's actual prison time.