Legal Opinion

Jaloff v. United Auto Indemnity Exchange

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 7, 1926PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The defendants contend that the trial court erred in admitting as evidence the judgment-roll in a former case between the parties hereto. The court record was relevant to a material issue. It proved that the coverage of plaintiff’s motor vehicle known in the record as Car Number 48 by Insurance Policy Number 428 issued and delivered to him by the defendants and forming the basis of this action formed one of the material and relevant issues in a prior action between the identical parties hereto, and involved the same wrongful act, which action resulted in a final judgment upon the merits of…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. St. Louis Dressed Beef & Provision Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1906
  2. Winter v. . City of Niagara FallsNew York Court of Appeals · 1907
  3. Butler Bros. v. American Fidelity Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
  4. Matter of Empire State Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1915
  5. Wisconsin Zinc Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of MarylandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. Oregon Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Hawkeye Casualty Co. v. StokerNebraska Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc. v. Wakehouse Motors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  4. United States Guarantee Co. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Coppedge v. ClintonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934

12 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