O'Harra v. Pundt

25 Citing cases

  1. State v. Hubbard

    61 Or. App. 350 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 3 times

    15 Or App at 100. Other Oregon cases have allowed impeachment for bias and interest by showing: (1) that witnesses were parties to other legal actions that would be directly influenced by the outcome of the case, Schmitz v. Yant, 242 Or. 308, 409 P.2d 346 (1965); McCarty v. Hedges et al, supra; O'Harra v. Pundt, 210 Or. 533, 310 P.2d 1110 (1957); Clevenger v. Schallhorn, 205 Or. 209, 286 P.2d 651 (1955); (2) that a defendant's accomplice-turned-prosecution-witness had "a powerful motive to curry favor with the prosecuting attorney" ( i.e., a motive to testify for the prosecution in order to avoid prosecution himself), State Oregon v. Bailey, supra; (3) that defendant and a defense witness had been acquaintances or friends when both were in the penitentiary, State v. Guerrero, 11 Or. App. 284, 501 P.2d 998, rev den (1972); (4) that a witness had accepted a bribe to refrain from testifying, State v. Dowell, 274 Or. 547, 547 P.2d 619 (1976); and (5) that a defense witness was personally hostile to the plaintiff. Rhodes v. Harwood, 280 Or. 399, 571 P.2d 492 (1977).

  2. Mason v. Householder

    58 Or. App. 192 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 4 times

    " 274 Or at 230. In O'Harra v. Pundt, 210 Or. 533, 310 P.2d 1110 (1957), an action for conversion of three dogs, the court found that evidence that the defendant had lied was insufficient in itself to show the defendant's wanton or willful disregard for the plaintiff's interests. In holding that it was error to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury, the court stated:

  3. Schmidt v. Pine Tree Land Development Co.

    49 Or. App. 323 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 2 times

    Noe v. Kaiser Foundation Hosp., 248 Or supra at 426-27. As stated in O'Harra v. Pundt, 210 Or. 533, 310 P.2d 1110 (1957), "[t]he question of the defendant's state of mind, whether wanton and wilful or not, relates to the time when he did the act * * *. An innocent or negligent act could not be converted into a wanton and wilful one by the fact that defendant thereafter sought by improper means to justify his mistake." 210 Or at 550-51.

  4. Simmons v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co.

    62 Cal.App.3d 341 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 75 times
    Finding misconduct of counsel and stating "Frequently plaintiffs'counsel would ask a question to which an objection would be sustained. Occasionally he would abide by the court's ruling and pursue some other line of inquiry. Frequently he would not."

    " ( Id. at p. 309.) In O'Harra v. Pundt (1957) 210 Or. 533 [ 310 P.2d 1110], punitive damages were disallowed a negligent wrongdoer, who later lied to cover up his mistake, on the ground that it was the defendant's state of mind at the time of the wrongdoing that was determinative of malice. "An innocent or negligent act could not be converted into a wanton and wilful one by the fact that defendant thereafter sought by improper means to justify his mistake."

  5. Reynolds Metals Company v. Lampert

    324 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1963)   Cited 8 times
    In Reynolds Metals Co. v. Lampert (9th Cir. 1963), 324 F.2d 465, a case involving a factual situation similar to the case at bar, the neighbors of an aluminum-production plant sought actual and punitive damages on the ground that fluorides emitted from the plant had damaged vegetation on their property.

    The credibility of this testimony was for the jury. O'Harra v. Pundt, 210 Or. 533, 310 P.2d 1110 (1957). (4) That if permitted by the trial court Sigmund C. Schwarz would have testified that an electrostatic precipitator operated efficiently would remove 98 to 99 per cent particulate matter.

  6. State v. Hubbard

    297 Or. 789 (Or. 1984)   Cited 65 times
    Holding that exclusion of bias evidence is not harmless where "the impeached witness [was] the sole witness on a given issue and there [was] no corroborating evidence"

    "Matters which would otherwise be irrelevant may be offered to show the bias or interest of a witness." State v. Dowell, supra, 274 Or at 550; O'Harra v. Pundt, 210 Or. 533, 543, 310 P.2d 1110 (1957). To be relevant, evidence introduced to impeach a witness for bias or interest need only have a mere tendency to show the bias or interest of the witness.

  7. Schmidt v. Pine Tree Land Development Co.

    291 Or. 462 (Or. 1981)   Cited 25 times
    In Schmidt v. Pine Tree Land Dev., 291 Or. 462, 465, 631 P.2d 1373 (1981), the Supreme Court held that proof of intentional fraudulent conduct may justify punitive damages.

    " The opinion then stated that evidence of attempts to conceal the improper double sales from purchasers did not show that these double sales themselves had resulted from a wanton or willful attitude, citing Noe v. Kaiser Foundation Hosp., 248 Or. 420, 426-427, 435 P.2d 306 (1967) and O'Harra v. Pundt, 210 Or. 533, 310 P.2d 1110 (1957). * * * * *

  8. Kang v. Harrington

    59 Haw. 652 (Haw. 1978)   Cited 96 times
    Holding that a claim for punitive damages "is not an independent tort, but is purely incidental to a separate cause of action"

    Further, in determining that degree, the analysis is limited to an examination of defendant's state of mind at the time of the act. O'Harra v. Pundt, 210 Or. 533, 310 P.2d 1110 (1957). Consequently, defendant's subsequent actions and state of mind during trial are irrelevant.

  9. State v. Dowell

    274 Or. 547 (Or. 1976)   Cited 16 times
    In Dowell, we held that the typical "Queen Caroline" foundation of establishing time, place and persons present at the time of prior inconsistent statements should also be required for evidence of conduct or statements demonstrating bias or interest.

    Matters which would otherwise be irrelevant may be offered to show the bias or interest of a witness. O'Harra v. Pundt, 210 Or. 533, 543, 310 P.2d 1110 (1957). We agree with the Court of Appeals in its holding that to discredit a witness it may be shown that he accepted a bribe to testify or not to testify and that this offered evidence would have been admissible to impeach the credibility of Mrs. Chestine had such evidence been properly offered.

  10. Shrock v. Goodell

    528 P.2d 1048 (Or. 1974)   Cited 12 times

    Matters may be relevant to the bias of the witness which are not otherwise relevant to the case and may be admitted for the mere tendency to prove bias or interest. O'Harra v. Pundt, 210 Or. 533, 543, 310 P.2d 1110 (1957). However, relevancy being a question of degree, the trial judge may and should draw the line to exclude that which is of little or no probative value.