Parmele v. Mathews
Oregon Supreme Court
1DissentO’Connell, J.
Both parties have waived all procedural defects in the present case and have urged us to decide whether Mrs. Parmele is entitled to the custody of her two sons. The majority opinion refuses to decide the issue presented. The ground for its refusal is that the circuit court of Lane county did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue presented and that the parties could not waive a jurisdictional defect.
I have very great difficulty following the reasoning in the majority opinion. Consequently, it is quite possible that I have not correctly interpreted it. It first appears to say that the…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- People ex rel. Kropp v. ShepskyNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
- People ex rel. Portnoy v. StrasserNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
- Giacopelli v. Florence Crittenton HomeIllinois Supreme Court · 1959
- Dippold v. Cathlamet Timber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1920
- Quinn v. HanksOregon Supreme Court · 1951
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.