Legal Opinion

Borg v. Utah Construction Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1925PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

A motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be determined from the pleadings alone: Section 202, Or. L., Snyder v. Portland Ry. L. & P. Co., 107 Or. 673, 676 (215 Pac. 887); Bertin & Lepori v. Mattison, 80 Or. 354, 358—360 (157 Pac. 153, 5 A. L. R. 590); Houser v. West, 39 Or. 392, 395, 396 (65 Pac. 82); Kirk v. Salt Lake City, 32 Utah, 143 (89 Pac. 458, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1021).

We deem it unnecessary to consider the first question propounded in appellants’ brief. Inasmuch as the insufficiency of the complaint to state facts can be raised at any time it is not necessary to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Snyder v. Portland Railway, Light & Power Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Chamberlain v. HibbardOregon Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Johnson v. PrinevilleOregon Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Kirk v. Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1907
  5. J. R. Meyers & Co. v. Pacific Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Edvalson v. SwickOregon Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Wilson v. MatteiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API