Legal Opinion

Deetz v. Cobbs & Mitchell Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 1926PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BEAN, J. —

Plaintiff contends that this action is covered by Section 6, subdivision 4, Or. L., which provides that actions at law shall only be commenced “Within six years, # * (4) An action for taking, detaining, or injuring personal property, including an action for the specific recovery thereof.” The trial court held, and the defendant contends, that the action was barred by Section 8, subdivision (1), which, in so far as material, reads thus:

“Within two years, — ■
“(1) an action for any injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract, and not herein especially enumerated…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lowe v. OzmunCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Dalton v. KelseyOregon Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. WilcoxSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  4. Horton v. JackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Reese v. QualtroughUtah Supreme Court · 1916

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Securities-Intermountain, Inc. v. Sunset Fuel Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Kodiak Electric Ass'n v. Delaval Turbine, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Vest v. First National Bank of FairbanksAlaska Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Common School District No. 18 v. Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Public Service Commission v. Pacific Stages, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929

7 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