Legal Opinion

La Grande v. Rumelhart

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1926PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

Were witnesses Pierce and Liley qualified to testify to the value of land? Both of these witnesses testified that they had lived in the same locality in which the land involved is located for a number of years; both were owners of real property in that locality, and both knew of a tract of land of the same general quality in the same community as the land appropriated and which had been recently sold by voluntary sale. Under the general authorities and the authorities in this state they were competent to testify: Lewis’ Eminent Domain (2 ed.), § 443; 10 R. C. L. 220, 221, §188; Portland v.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad v. HeidenreichIllinois Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Rugenstein v. OttenheimerOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Doud v. Mason City & Ft. Dodge Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1888
  4. Springfield & Memphis Railway Co. v. HenrySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
  5. Portland & O. C. Ry. Co. v. SandersOregon Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. BurkOregon Supreme Court · 1954
  2. State Highway Commission v. BaileyOregon Supreme Court · 1957
  3. State Highway Commission v. ParkerOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Santiam Lumber Co. v. ConhaimOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  5. CALIFORNIA-PACIFIC UTILITIES COMPANY v. BarryOregon Supreme Court · 1969

5 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