Legal Opinion

Meaney v. State Industrial Accident Commission

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 1924PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] IN BANC.

The respondent, Jack J. Meaney, moves to dismiss the appeal of the appellant, State Industrial Accident Commission, on three grounds:

First: That appellant has neither filed nor served an abstract of record herein as required by law and the rules of this court, at any time or at all.

Second: That appellant has neither filed, prepared, nor submitted a bill of exceptions nor a transcript of evidence prior to filing and serving brief of appellant, at any…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Chebot v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Jones v. ConnOregon Supreme Court · 1901
  3. State v. ChaseOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Butterfield v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Williams v. Pacific Surety Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Williams v. RaganOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Bratt v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Silbaugh v. Guardian Building & Loan Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1940
  4. State Ex Rel. Meaney v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co. v. City Electric Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1959

4 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