Legal Opinion
State v. Gerritson
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided February 28, 1928PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.
The first contention of defendants cannot be sustained.
The contrary view was announced by this court in State v. Whiteaker, 118 Or. 656 (247 Pac. 1077), in an opinion by Mr. Justice Belt, in page 661:
“There is more reason for the application of this law to unorganized business concerns than to those having a recognized legal entity. The corporation commissioner would undoubtedly be more hesitant in granting a permit to sell ‘securities’ in a future or contemplated business enterprise than in an established and going concern. There is more uncertainty and speculation in the former class of…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- State v. LaundyOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Merrick Et Al. v. N. W. Halsey & Company Et Al., and the Weis Fibre Container CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- People v. PaceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- State v. WhiteakerOregon Supreme Court · 1926
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- State v. WoolardOregon Supreme Court · 1971
- Kneeland v. EmertonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- State v. SteeleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
- Atwood v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1938
- State of Oregon v. ElliottOregon Supreme Court · 1954
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.