Legal Opinion

Ford v. Schall

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 1925PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBelt, J.

It is contended that, even though no evidence was offered by defendant to contradict the testimony of plaintiff as to interest payments, it was nevertheless a question of fact to be submitted to the jury. The fact in itself that evidence is uncontradicted does not warrant the court in directing a verdict.

The evidence may be undisputed, but it is a question for the jury if, as stated in Koontz v. Oregon R. & N. Co., 20 Or. 21 (23 Pac. 820), and cited with approval in Graham v. Coos Bay R. & N. Co., 71 Or. 393 (139 Pac. 337), men of reasonable minds might draw different conclusions from the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Koontz v. O. R. & N. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Graham v. Coos Bay R. & N. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1914

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Rickard v. EllisOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Argonaut Insurance v. Ketchen, Fireman's Fund InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Fleishhacker v. Portland News Publishing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Holman v. UglowOregon Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Donis v. Sawyer Service, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1933

1 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