Legal Opinion

School Dist. No. 106 v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 1930PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

At the outset it will be helpful to note that the receipt or alleged “release” invoked in defense of plaintiff’s cause arose from and in the settlement of a claim for $2,587.75, based upon a different policy and covering a different period of time, and for peculations other than those which resulted in the filing of this action.

With respect to the first proposition presented by defendant, it is proper to observe the holding of this court in a number of instances to the effect that, when a law action is tried to the court without a jury, it is the duty of the court to enter findings of fact…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Bates v. BabcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Maeder Steel Products Co. v. ZanelloOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Oregon Home Builders v. Montgomery Inv. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Houghton & Palmer v. BeckOregon Supreme Court · 1881
  5. Crawford v. School District No. 7Oregon Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State v. ClaypoolOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Neuhaus v. FedericoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
  3. Oregon, State Highway Com'n v. DeLong Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1972
  4. Fred Christensen, Inc. v. Hansen Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Close-Smith v. ConleyDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1964

17 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