Portland v. Tigard
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: William N. Gatens, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Eakin. This is an action by the City of Portland against C. S. Tigard and others. On April 27, 1910, the city council of the City of Portland passed Ordinance No. 21,130, adopting the report of the viewers, which said ordinance assessed the benefits and damages occasioned to adjacent owners by the location and extension of Ainsworth Avenue.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: William N. Gatens, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Eakin. This is an action by the City of Portland against C. S. Tigard and others. On April 27, 1910, the city council of the City of Portland passed Ordinance No. 21,130, adopting the report of the viewers, which said ordinance assessed the benefits and damages occasioned to adjacent owners by the location and extension of Ainsworth Avenue. The damages and benefits assessed to appellant are damages for taking the north 20 feet of lot 9, block 30, Piedmont Addition, $320; damages for taking the south 58.43 feet of lot 1, block…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Eakin
Many exceptions were taken upon the admissibility of evidence and to the instructions of the court, and are covered by defendant’s brief under four propositions.
1. First. The court erred in permitting certain witnesses to state their opinions to the jury as to the amount of the benefits and damages resulting to the defendant. The objection to the questions involved did not relate to *406the damages to the property, but to the benefits accruing to lot 2, block 31, which did not abut upon the proposed street. The witnesses Simmons and Sinnott are admitted to be expert witnesses, who gave their…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Blagen v. ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1892
- Oregon R. & N. Co. v. EastlackOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Lake Koen Navigation, Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McLain Land & Investment Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1904
- Shannahan v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- Burton v. SeveranceOregon Supreme Court · 1892
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State Highway & Public Works Commission v. HartleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- State Highway Commission v. ParkerOregon Supreme Court · 1960
- Fidelity Security Corp. v. BrugmanOregon Supreme Court · 1931
- Douglas County v. MEYERSOregon Supreme Court · 1954
- State Highway Commission v. Empire Building Material Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1974
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.