Legal Opinion

Costello v. Costello

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1926PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COSHOW, J. —

The appearances as noted at the beginning of the trial omitted the State of Oregon. The omission was not discovered until some time after the adjournment of the term of court at which the trial was conducted. When it was discovered the plaintiff applied to the court for an order to correct the omisssion by showing that the deputy district attorney appeared in behalf of the state. This application was resisted by the defendant. The district attorney was not served with summons in the suit. The statute requires the district attorney to be served with the summons in a suit for…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Potter Realty Co. v. DerbyOregon Supreme Court · 1915
  2. State v. DonahueOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Beckley v. BeckleyOregon Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Nelson v. StewartOregon Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Crowe v. AlbeeOregon Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Siebert v. SiebertOregon Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Hubbard v. HubbardOregon Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Geis v. GallusOregon Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Howard v. HowardOregon Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Hinckley v. HinckleyOregon Supreme Court · 1956

2 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