Petitions for Review

14 Citing cases

  1. State v. Rosette

    289 Or. App. 581 (Or. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times
    Explaining that conversion is the comparable civil action to determine the amount of restitution for the crime of theft

    The victim is entitled to damages for loss of use, calculated by rental value, whether or not a substitute was actually rented. Graf v. Don Rasmussen Co. , 39 Or.App. 311, 317-18, 592 P.2d 250 [, rev. den. , 286 Or. 521] (1979)."The only indication of the value of the loss of use of the Bobcat was that the current cost of renting a replacement is $1,975.

  2. In the Matter, Marriage, O'Donnell-Lamont

    187 Or. App. 14 (Or. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 6 times

    Moreover, even if Jones is correct in the abstract, it is not clear that it would apply in a case such as this, in which it could be argued that grandparents do not have the sort of liberty interest that triggers due process procedural protections. See, e.g., Graham v. Children Services Division, 39 Or. App. 27, 30-34, 591 P.2d 375, rev den, 286 Or. 521 (1979) ("grandparents have no liberty interest * * * and no rights superior to a nonrelative applying for permission to adopt"). Even if federal due process principles do not require a remand, however, we have discretion to remand based on considerations of basic fairness.

  3. Jett v. Ford Motor Co.

    183 Or. App. 260 (Or. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 5 times

    The court noted Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, but concluded that the exclusion of the safety manual in that case was driven by the facts and not by any general rule of relevance or admissibility. Cole, 39 Or. App. at 217; see also Volt Services Group v. Adecco Employment Services, 178 Or. App. 121, 131-32, 35 P.3d 329 (2001), rev den 333 Or. 567 (2002) (advisory code of ethics relevant to whether the defendant's conduct was improper under the circumstances); Hval v. SouthernPacific, 39 Or. App. 479, 483, 592 P.2d 1046, rev den 286 Or. 521 (1979) ("It was proper for the jury to consider whether plaintiff failed to observe the company's safety rules in deciding whether [the plaintiff] was negligent."). In this case, the trial court excluded the evidence of the UPS safety manual on the ground that it is not relevant.

  4. Beall Transport Eqpt. v. Southern Pac. Trans

    170 Or. App. 336 (Or. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 5 times

    In light of our case law to the contrary, that argument fails. See, e.g., Graf v. Don Rasmussen, 39 Or. App. 311, 317-18, 592 P.2d 250, rev den 286 Or. 521 (1979) ("The majority of jurisdictions hold that it is not necessary that plaintiff actually incur expense in acquiring a substitute in order to recover for loss of use * * *. The owner has suffered compensable inconvenience and deprivation of the right to possess and use her chattel whether or not a substitute was obtained.").

  5. Winfrey v. Downtown Delicatessen, Inc.

    971 P.2d 476 (Or. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    Nor is the problem accurately described as a waiver of plaintiff's right to appeal by "acceptance of the benefits of the judgment." See Graf v. Don Rasmussen Co., 39 Or. App. 311, 314, 592 P.2d 250, rev den 286 Or. 521 (1979). A conclusion that the negligent retention claim should have been submitted to the jury would not require reversal or retrial on plaintiff's other theories of liability.

  6. Harrington v. Warlick

    92 Or. App. 269 (Or. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 3 times
    In Harrington, the court held that the defendants waived their right to appeal an arbitration award when they accepted the award.

    It is well settled in ordinary litigation that a party may waive the right to appeal by accepting the benefits of a judgment or an order. Pac. Gen. Contrs. v. Slate Const. Co., 196 Or. 608, 611, 251 P.2d 454 (1954); Graf v. Don Rasmussen Co., 39 Or. App. 311, 314, 592 P.2d 250, rev den 286 Or. 521 (1979). The rule has been applied generally in civil cases and also in domestic relations cases.

  7. Anais v. Dias

    689 P.2d 1011 (Or. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    Loss of use of the car would have been a compensable item of injury if plaintiffs had also sued defendant for property damage to their car. Graf v. Don Rasmussen Co., 39 Or. App. 311, 316-17, 592 P.2d 250, rev den 286 Or. 521 (1979). Moreover, although defendant's insurer is itself not legally liable to plaintiffs for the loss of use, the statute does not require that only the person legally liable may make an "advance payment."

  8. State v. Waites

    692 P.2d 654 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 5 times
    Declining to give substantial weight to trial court's unreviewable demeanor-based determination that the appellant was dangerous to others where the two testifying examiners who observed the same courtroom conduct both opined that the appellant was not dangerous

    The trial court did not make findings that described the demeanor of appellant, and we are unable to review that aspect in determining if the commitment order is correct. See State v. Troupe, 36 Or. App. 875, 586 P.2d 95 (1978), rev den 286 Or. 521 (1979) (Gillette, J., concurring). The evidence we are able to glean from the record regarding appellant's somewhat inappropriate responses during the hearing and his aggressive behavior toward the AFSD caseworker is insufficient to establish that he had a mental disorder.

  9. Matter of Marriage of Nickerson

    63 Or. App. 854 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 3 times

    While we would prefer a rule that would allow the appeal to continue when a motion to modify is denied, we are bound by Wilson v. Wilson, 242 Or. 201, 407 P.2d 898, 408 P.2d 940 (1965). Turning to wife's contention that the appeal should be dismissed as to husband's claim that the trial court was without authority to award interest in excess of the 9 percent provided by ORS 82.010(3) applicable to judgments and decrees, we said in Graf v. Don Rasmussen Co., 39 Or. App. 311, 314, 592 P.2d 250, rev den 286 Or. 521 (1979): "It is the general rule that a party may waive the right to appeal by acquiescing in the order below or claiming the benefits of the judgment.

  10. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. V

    660 P.2d 707 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 4 times

    On the basis of their study, in October, 1980, the staff decided not to consent to their application for adoption. The foster parents sought judicial review, ORS 183.484, Graham v. Children's Services Division, 39 Or. App. 27, 591 P.2d 375, rev den 286 Or. 521 (1979), of CSD's refusal to consent to the adoption, and the children intervened. The petition for judicial review was consolidated with the juvenile court proceeding.