- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: 08-26-2020
- Case #: A160322
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner appealed an order from the trial court granting a new trial based on misconduct under ORCP 64 B(2). On appeal, Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in concluding that she had acted with impropriety. Petitioner also argued that, if there was misconduct, it did not “materially affect the substantial rights” of Defendant. Petitioner asserted that the trial court found that the failure to produce the work history affidavit was inadvertent. In response, Defendant argued that in the absence of information from Petitioner’s counsel, the court should infer misconduct. Under ORCP 64 B(2), “[a] former judgment may be set aside and a new trial granted in an action where there has been a [jury trial] on the motion of the party aggrieved for [...] causes materially affecting the substantial rights of such party: [m]isconduct of the jury or prevailing party.” The Court found the Defendant’s response persuasive. Therefore, the Court held that in considering the context of the whole case—the defense theory, the available evidence at trial, the likelihood that the work history affidavit would have persuaded the jury—that the Petitioner’s misconduct materially affected Defendant’s substantial rights. Affirmed.