Legal Opinion

Michelin Tire Co. v. Hurlburt

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1927PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, C. J.

The plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California with its principal office in that state. The defendant Hurlburt is sheriff and tax collector in Multnomah County in this state. The plaintiff at the time mentioned in the complaint was authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon. For several years it had been shipping to Portland from San Francisco by water quantities of its merchandise which it stored in a warehouse in Portland and from thence distributed it to its customers throughout the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana. There is…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Endicott, Johnson & Co. v. Multnomah CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Johnson v. City CouncilClackamas County Circuit Court, Oregon · 1868
  3. Baars v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  4. W. W. Kimball Co. v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
  5. People ex rel. Orinoka Mills v. BarkerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Jones v. Department of RevenueOregon Tax Court · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API