Legal Opinion

Finch v. Pacific Reduction & Chemical Mfg. Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1925PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The plaintiffs assume that the motion and the authority of the court to vacate the judgment weré based upon the provisions of Section 103, Oregon Laws, whereby the court may, within the time therein limited, relieve a party from a judgment taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

It is true that in this jurisdiction the defendant, on filing a motion to set aside a judgment for the reasons enumerated in Section 103, Or. L., is required to show facts constituting a defense on the merits, and he must tender an answer to the merits concurrently with the…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Deering v. QuiveyOregon Supreme Court · 1895
  2. White v. LaddOregon Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Ladd & Tilton v. MasonOregon Supreme Court · 1882
  4. In Re Waters of Chewaucan RiverOregon Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Carmichael v. CarmichaelOregon Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Lothstein v. FitzpatrickOregon Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Salitan v. DashneyOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Dixie Meadows Independence Mines Co. v. KightOregon Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Bailey v. SteeleOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Wiles v. WilesOregon Supreme Court · 1957

14 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