Legal Opinion · Dissent

McDowell v. Hurner

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 1932Published

1DissentBelt, J.

On original hearing, Bean, Brown, Campbell and Belt, JJ., sitting, this court agreed without dissent that the “family car doctrine” should not be extended to the facts in this case. The writer, therefore, is fully in accord with the statement in the majority opinion that, “It is desirable that there be uniformity and stability in our decisions; that we do not declare the law to be one thing today and something else tomorrow; and that we do not deny today relief which we yesterday granted”. Yea, verily, that is a wise and wholesome doctrine. It is an equally wise policy for every court to…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Stumpf v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
  2. Van Blaricom v. . DodgsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  3. Hays v. HoganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1917
  4. Parker v. WilsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
  5. Doran v. ThomsenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1908

29 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