Legal Opinion

Lipman Wolfe & Co. v. Teeples & Thatcher, Inc.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1974PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.

This is an action for indemnity in which the jury found for plaintiff against both defendants. The trial court, notwithstanding the verdict for plaintiff, vacated the judgment against both defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff Lipman’s operates a large retad department store in Portland. Plaintiff contracted with Teeples & Thatcher to perform over a period of several years certain remodeling in the store. As part of the remodeling, Teeples subcontracted with Artcraft Linoleum to lay floor tile in certain areas of the store. On March 13, 1967, Artcraft was laying tile in front of .the…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Fulton Insurance Co. v. White Motor Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Gordon Creek Tree Farms, Inc. v. LayneOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Corrigan v. ElsingerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
  4. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Thomlinson-Arkwright Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1943
  5. General Insurance Co. of America v. P. S. Lord Mechanical ContractorsOregon Supreme Court · 1971

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. KellyArizona Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Thomassen v. J & K Diner, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  3. Koepke v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  4. Otero v. Jordan Restaurant EnterprisesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Price v. Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2011

14 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