Lane v. Portland Ry., Light & Power Co.
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: Calvin U. Gantenbein, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. This is an action by Isaac Lane against the Portland Railway, Light & Power Company, to recover damages for alleged injury to the person and property of plaintiff, resulting from the collision of defendant’s electric car with his team and wagon on November 19,' 1908, in the city of Portland, occurring on Grand Avenue, near its intersection with Hawthorne Avenue, upon which street, running north and…
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: Calvin U. Gantenbein, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. This is an action by Isaac Lane against the Portland Railway, Light & Power Company, to recover damages for alleged injury to the person and property of plaintiff, resulting from the collision of defendant’s electric car with his team and wagon on November 19,' 1908, in the city of Portland, occurring on Grand Avenue, near its intersection with Hawthorne Avenue, upon which street, running north and south, defendant maintains two parallel street car tracks. At the time of the casualty a northbound car was standing on…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bean
1. The statute of this State, Section 132, L. O. L., provides that when the jury has been impaneled and sworn “the plaintiff shall state briefly his cause of action, and the issue to be tried ;the defendant shall then in like manner state his defense.” This statement is the privilege of'the attorney for each party, if he sees fit to exercise it.
2. The opening statement is obviously intended to advise the jury concerning the questions of fact involved, in order to prepare their minds for the evidence to be heard, but is not intended to take the place of a complaint or other pleading, and how…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Oscanyan v. Arms Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Lindley v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé RailroadSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
- Donohoe v. Portland Railway Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1910
- Haley v. Western Transit Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by8 opinions
- Farnham v. Lenox Motor Car Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Palmer v. MURDOCKOregon Supreme Court · 1963
- Temple v. Cotton Transfer Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1934
- State v. KeatonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
- McCarty v. HagenWashington Supreme Court · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.