Legal Opinion

Taylor v. Grant

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 1960PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSloan, J.

Each of these consolidated cases is an action for money had and received. Judgment for defendants in each case is appealed by plaintiffs. The detailed facts which prompted these actions are set forth in previous cases involving the same or equivalent parties and the same transaction. Siniscal v. United States, 208 Fd2 406, (9 Cir, 1953); cert den 348 US 818, 75 S Ct 29, 99 L ed 645; Taylor et ux v. Grant et al, 204 Or 10, 279 P2d 479, 279 P2d 1037, 281 P2d 704. The detailed facts there related will not be repeated.

It is sufficient to explain that the defendants Grant and Thornton were Indians…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Heckman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. Taylor v. GrantOregon Supreme Court · 1955
  3. REID v. ReidOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Vanderpool v. BurkittOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Jefferson v. RustSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Artman v. RayOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Burlington Northern Inc. v. LesterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  3. Stroda v. State Ex Rel. State Highway CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1975
  4. Budget Rent-A-Car of Washington-Oregon, Inc. v. Multnomah CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978

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

Powered by the Exa API