Legal Opinion

Rushlight Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. City of Portland

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 1950PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court which (1) held that the defendants had no right to the sum of $21,472.21 which the plaintiff deposited with the City of Portland, one of the defendants-appellants, concurrently with the submission of a proposal made by the plaintiff for the construction of a city sewer; (2) decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the City in the amount of $21,472.21; and (3) ordered the other defendants-appellants to pursue the course requisite to the return to the plaintiff of the money just mentioned.

The plaintiff, which is a…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Moffett, Hodgkins & Clarke Co. v. RochesterSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. Steinmeyer v. SchroeppelIllinois Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Wheaton Building & Lumber Co. v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
  4. St. Nicholas Church v. KroppSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
  5. Frederich v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Gardner v. MeilingOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Mayor of Baltimore v. DeLuca-Davis Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1956
  3. Wheeler v. White Rock Bottling Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1961
  4. State Highway Commission v. State Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Springer v. Powder Power Tool Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1960

24 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