Legal Opinion

Handy v. Beck

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 20, 1978No. 76-1909, SC 25408PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*655JOSEPH, J.,

Pro Tempore.

In this fraud action, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered for the defendant after a trial to the court.

In 1970, plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest had a water well drilled by defendant, who operated a drilling business in an informal partnership with his sons. State regulations required that domestic water wells be cased to a depth of 18 feet and sealed. OAR 71-006; 71-008; 71.010. The defendant’s sons, who did the actual work, mostly without participation by the defendant, installed only eight and one-half feet of casing and an insufficient amount of sealing.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. MacEwan v. HOLMOregon Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Bodenhamer v. PattersonOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Rice v. McAlisterOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Wheelwright v. VanderbiltOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Menefee v. BlitzOregon Supreme Court · 1947

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Ernst & Young, L.L.P. v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co. of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Woodward v. DietrichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Barnhouse v. City of PinoleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
  5. prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 12,456 Learjet Corporation v. Robert SpenlinhauerCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API