Olson v. Heisen
Oregon Supreme Court
From Crook:- T. E. J. Duffy, Judge. In Banc.
1Opinion of the CourtHarris, J.
The only question for decision is whether Chapter 163, Laws of 1907, authorized the trial court to allow an attorney’s fee in the instant action. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff performed work and labor for the defendant and that the *177sum of $300 is due; that the defendant discharged the plaintiff and that thereupon the plaintiff demanded payment of the wages due him, hut that the defendant has refused to pay the sum due although a period of more than 48 hours has elapsed. The answer consisted of a general denial. The jury returned a verdict for $300. Upon entering the judgment on the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Van Horn v. State ex rel. AbbottNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- The San PedroSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
- State v. YoungOregon Supreme Court · 1915
- Farmers' Bank v. . HaleNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Campbell v. Jackman Bros.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1908
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Dippold v. Cathlamet Timber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1920
- Hekker v. Sabre Construction CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1973
- Blanchana, LLC v. Bureau of Labor and IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 2014
- Levine v. LevineOregon Supreme Court · 1920
- Holman Transfer Co. v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1952
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.