Legal Opinion

Holland v. Eugene Hospital

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 21, 1928PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

The motions for a nonsuit and motions for a directed verdict of course may be considered together for the reason that if there is any testimony found in the record introduced by defendants, which is favorable to plaintiff’s case, it would be weighed in determining the motion for a nonsuit. This well-known rule needs no citation of authority.

Taking up the motions for a nonsuit and directed verdict in favor of defendant Eugene Hospital, a careful examination of the record fails to disclose that the hospital made any contract or engaged to perform any services for the plaintiff other than the…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. PrenticeSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. ArmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. Ala. Great Southern R. R. v. HillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
  4. Cameron Mill & Elevator Co. v. AndersonTexas Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Gill v. SellingOregon Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Noe v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsOregon Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Eads v. BormanOregon Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Horn v. National Hospital AssociationOregon Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Medvecz v. ChoiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
  5. Themins v. Emanuel Lutheran Charity BoardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1981

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