Court Opinion

ID: 9528819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:44:22.665335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:22.314174
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
*528Stanley C. Jones, Medford, and J. Anthony Giacomini, Klamath Falls, filed a brief in support of the petition.
H. F. Smith, Klamath Falls, John S. Martel and Elke, Farella, Braun & Martel, San Francisco, California, contra.
Before Perry, Chief Justice, and McAllister, Sloan, O’Connell, Goodwin, Denecke and Holman,* Justices.
DENECKE, J.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
The following statement is made in the initial opinion:
“* * * Thomson’s motion was premature as Riley had not rested at the time of Thomson’s first motion. A motion for a directed verdict is properly made after all the evidence is introduced and *529all the evidence introduced by any party is considered in determining the ruling upon such motion.* * *"
We believe it advisable to clarify this statement as follows:
A motion for a directed verdict by one defendant should not be considered until such time as all the evidence is in if there is any probability that any evidence to be offered might make out a case against the moving defendant. Bates v. Miller, 133 F2d 645, 648 (2d Cir 1943); Sadler v. Draper, 46 Tenn App 1, 16, 326 SW2d 148, 155 (1959); Annotation, 48 ALR2d 535 (1956).