Rule 64.New Trials
Current through June 1, 2026 · Last verified July 11, 2026
Full Text of Rule 64
Amendment History
[CCP 12/2/78; § B amended by 1979 c.284 § 39; §§ F, G amended by CCP 12/13/80; §§ D-F amended by 2003 c.194 § 12 eff. 1/1/04; § F amended by CCP 12/9/06, eff. 1/1/08]
Plain-English Summary
A new trial under Rule 64 is a do-over of a factual question in the same court, after judgment has already been entered. For cases tried to a jury, section B lists six grounds a party can raise: irregularities in the proceedings or an abuse of discretion that kept the party from a fair trial, misconduct by the jury or the prevailing party, accident or surprise ordinary care could not have prevented, newly discovered evidence the party could not have found and produced at trial with reasonable diligence, evidence too thin to support the verdict or a verdict against the law, and legal error at trial that was objected to at the time. Section C carries the same grounds over to cases tried without a jury, but gives the judge a lighter-touch option: instead of ordering a full new trial, the court can reopen the judgment, take more testimony, amend or rewrite its findings and conclusions, and enter a new judgment on that basis.
The motion has to spell out its grounds plainly — a court will not consider a ground the party never stated. The first four grounds (irregularity, misconduct, accident or surprise, and newly discovered evidence) must be backed by an affidavit or declaration laying out the supporting facts; a newly-discovered-evidence motion also needs affidavits or declarations from the witnesses describing what they would say, or a good reason why that proof is missing. The opposing party can answer with its own counteraffidavits or counterdeclarations. Filing deadlines mirror Rule 63’s: the motion is due not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment (or a court-approved extension), any counteraffidavits are due 10 days after that, and the court must decide the motion within 55 days of the judgment or it is deemed denied. A notice of appeal does not block any of this, though the moving party owes the appellate court copies of the motion and any resulting order. A trial court can also order a new trial on its own, without any motion, but only within 30 days of the judgment, and only with a full statement of its reasons made part of the record.
Frequently Asked Questions
What grounds can support a motion for a new trial after a jury verdict in Oregon?
Rule 64 B lists six: irregularity in the proceedings or an abuse of discretion that denied a fair trial, misconduct of the jury or the prevailing party, accident or surprise ordinary prudence could not have guarded against, newly discovered evidence the party could not have found and produced at trial with reasonable diligence, insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or a verdict against the law, and legal error at trial that was objected to.
Do I need an affidavit to support a motion for a new trial in Oregon?
For four of the six grounds — irregularity, misconduct, accident or surprise, and newly discovered evidence — yes, the motion must be supported by an affidavit or declaration setting out the facts. A newly-discovered-evidence motion also needs affidavits or declarations from the witnesses on what their testimony would be, or a good reason why that is not possible.
How long do I have to move for a new trial in Oregon?
The motion is due not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, or a further time the court allows. The court then has 55 days from entry of the judgment to hear and decide the motion; if it does not, the motion is deemed denied.
Can a judge grant a new trial without a motion from either party?
Yes. Rule 64 G lets the court order a new trial on its own initiative, but the order must be made within 30 days after entry of the judgment and must fully state the grounds for the record.
Is a new trial available after a case tried without a jury?
Yes. Rule 64 C applies the same grounds where they fit, and also lets the court reopen the judgment, take additional testimony, amend or make new findings of fact and conclusions of law, and enter a new judgment, instead of holding a full new trial.