Gen. Constr. v. Ore. Fish Com

3 Citing cases

  1. Davison v. Parker

    50 Or. App. 129 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 6 times

    The fact that some errors may have been made by defendants' employes in noting their time does not affect the overall reliability of the time cards as a source of information absent a showing that such errors were pervasive. The foundation was sufficient to render the summary admissible. ORS 41.690; Gen. Constr. v. Ore. Fish Com., 26 Or. App. 577, 589-90, 554 P.2d 185 (1976). ORS 41.690:

  2. Meislahn v. Demorest

    617 P.2d 322 (Or. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 7 times
    In Meislahn, the plaintiff brought suit against defendant for attempted sexual assault. During her case in chief, the plaintiff called as a witness an acquaintance of the defendant, who testified that the defendant had told him he was impotent.

    An objection to evidence as being cumulative is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. Gen. Constr. Co. v. Ore. Fish Comm., 26 Or. App. 577, 586-87, 554 P.2d 185 (1977); Simmons v. Holm et al, 229 Or. 373, 406, 367 P.2d 368 (1961). We find that there was no abuse of discretion.

  3. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Kramer

    580 P.2d 211 (Or. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 1 times

    Appellant did not attempt to indicate to the trial court which parts were cumulative. The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the reports. Simmons v. Holm et al, 229 Or. 373, 367 P.2d 368 (1961); Gen. Constr. v. Ore. Fish Com., 26 Or. App. 557, 554 P.2d 185 (1976), rev den (1977). We review de novo on the record (ORS 419.561(4), 19.125(3)), giving due regard to the findings of the trial court, which had an opportunity to observe the witnesses.