Legal Opinion

Hall v. Pierce

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 13, 1957Published

1Opinion

ON REHEARING

Helm & Neely, La Grande, and Brown & Yan Yaetor, The Dalles, for the petition. George T. Cochran, La Grande, and Gene B. Conklin, Pendleton, contra.

On Respondents’ Petition for Rehearing

ROSSMAN, J.

The petition for a rehearing argues that the pooling agreement averred in the complaint, and which received analysis in our previous opinion, does not constitute the sole basis for recovery which the plaintiffs submitted. They argue that an alternative theory of recovery is contained in their complaint and that it can be found in the paragraph of that pleading which we quoted in our…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. McEwen v. McEwenOregon Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Guthrie v. GardnerNew York Supreme Court · 1838
  3. Hayes v. HortonOregon Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Lyon v. MazerisOregon Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Alamo Motor Lines, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 657Court of Appeals of Texas · 1950

3 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