Padel v. Narits

5 Citing cases

  1. Fickert v. Gallagher

    544 P.2d 1032 (Or. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    " This does not call the trial court's attention to a specific objection, and it is too general to raise any question for consideration by this court. Padel v. Narits, 247 Or. 566, 568, 430 P.2d 1002 (1967). Defendants next contend that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the duty of care that defendant Norma M. Gallagher owed to plaintiff.

  2. Clubb v. Hanson

    272 Or. 236 (Or. 1975)   Cited 7 times

    In addition, it does not appear that proper or any objections or exceptions were taken at the time of trial, so as to provide proper grounds either for a motion for a new trial under ORS 17.610 or for an appeal to this court upon the denial of such a motion. See Padel v. Narits, 247 Or. 566, 430 P.2d 1002 (1967), and Transamerica Title Ins. v. Millar, 258 Or. 258, 263, 482 P.2d 163 (1971). See Elvalsons v. Industrial Covers, Inc., 269 Or. 441, 525 P.2d 105 (1974), and Pullen v. Calvert, 270 Or. 309, 527 P.2d 398 (1974).

  3. Harkins v. Doyle

    533 P.2d 785 (Or. 1975)   Cited 11 times

    The party excepting to an instruction must make known to the trial judge the specific objection which he wishes to present on appeal in order to raise a question for review by this court. Padel v. Narits, 247 Or. 566, 568, 430 P.2d 1002 (1967). Without approving or disapproving the court's instruction, we decline to consider whether the instruction as a whole was an inaccurate statement of the law.

  4. Wulff v. Sprouse-Reitz Co., Inc.

    498 P.2d 766 (Or. 1972)   Cited 37 times
    Making requested file an exhibit was required to preserve error

    Hamilton v. Union Oil Company et al, 216 Or. 354, 367-68, 339 P.2d 440 (1959). See also, Growers Refrig. Co. v. Amer. Mtr. Ins., 260 Or. 207, 488 P.2d 1358 (1971); Mays v. Huling Buick Co., 246 Or. 203, 205, 424 P.2d 679 (1967); Padel v. Narits, 247 Or. 566, 430 P.2d 1002 (1967); Meyers v. Muno, 236 Or. 68, 71, 386 P.2d 808 (1963); LaBarge v. United Insurance Co., 221 Or. 480, 488, 349 P.2d 822 (1960). The defendants also assign as error the court's modification of their Requested Instruction No. 2 by the insertion of the word solely.

  5. State v. Hart

    733 P.2d 913 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant has not raised a question for our review, because he failed to "make known to the trial judge the specific objection which he wishes to present on appeal * * *." Harkins v. Doyle, 271 Or. 664, 670, 533 P.2d 785 (1975); Padel v. Narits, 247 Or. 566, 568, 430 P.2d 1002 (1967). Defendant, having abandoned on appeal the ground for the exception actually made at trial, and not having raised at trial the ground for the exception argued on appeal, has waived any error in the instruction at issue.