Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Van Winkle v. Siegmund

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 1928PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

The defendants suggest that a state court does not have jurisdiction under a federal statute where that jurisdiction is not compatible with the jurisdiction of the federal courts under the same statute or where the jurisdiction of the state is excluded by implication, and also that mandamus is not maintainable for the reason that plaintiff has an ade quate remedy at law. Citing Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130 (23 L. Ed. 833).

The jurisdiction of the state court, in the present case, is in no way incompatible with the jurisdiction of the federal courts, if under the statute there were any…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. DeeringSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. Claflin v. HousemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. Lapina v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  4. Northern Counties Trust v. SearsOregon Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Oregon & California Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1915

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Huckestein v. PoulsenOregon Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Lockwood v. GuginOregon Supreme Court · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API