Legal Opinion

Reynolds v. Kanzler

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1928PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

When the findings recorded above are read in the light of the pleadings, there is neither uncertainty, ambiguity nor indefiniteness therein. Each party to the litigation alleged certain causes of action against the other; and these verdicts represent the expressed intention of the jury. In the plaintiffs’ first cause of action the jury decided, according to the verdict, that plaintiffs were entitled to recover from defendants the sum of $2,854.49. In the accompanying verdict covering the defendants’ cause of action, the jury manifestly intended to find that defendants were entitled to recover…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hudson v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Commonwealth v. Justices of the Court of SessionsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
  3. State ex rel. Webster v. KnightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
  4. Bishop v. MuglerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
  5. Forest Products Co. v. Dant & Russell, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1926

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Fischer v. HowardOregon Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Rodgers Insurance Agency v. Andersen MacHineryOregon Supreme Court · 1957
  3. State Ex Rel. Sam's Texaco & Towing, Inc. v. GallagherOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Fischer v. HowardOregon Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Fischer v. HowardOregon Supreme Court · 1954

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