From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Terminal Transfer

Oregon Court of Appeals
Feb 16, 1983
658 P.2d 579 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)

Opinion

A80 02 01083; CA A22215

Argued and submitted December 14, 1982

Affirmed February 16, 1983

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Hugh B. Collins, Judge Pro Tempore.

Roger G. Weidner, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Margaret H. Leek Leiberan, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Mitchell, Lang Smith, Portland.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.


PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.


The question in this personal injury case is whether the trial court erred in not giving three Uniform Jury Instructions requested by plaintiff. The portion of the record before us on appeal does not contain a transcript of the portion of the proceedings in which the trial court instructed the jury. Therefore, we cannot tell what instructions were given and what instructions were not, or whether those requested and refused were covered by those that were given. When an appellant does not designate a record that is adequate for review, we must affirm the judgment appealed from if the pleadings are sufficient to support it. Reeder v. Kay, 276 Or. 1111, 557 P.2d 673 (1976); H.N.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Hamilton, 49 Or. App. 613, 621 P.2d 57 (1980).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Smith v. Terminal Transfer

Oregon Court of Appeals
Feb 16, 1983
658 P.2d 579 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)
Case details for

Smith v. Terminal Transfer

Case Details

Full title:SMITH, Appellant, v. TERMINAL TRANSFER, INC., Respondent

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Feb 16, 1983

Citations

658 P.2d 579 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)
658 P.2d 579

Citing Cases

Ferguson v. Nelson

Appellants who assign error to jury instructions without designating the jury charge as part of the record do…