Legal Opinion

Vancil v. Poulson

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 22, 1964PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.

This is an action against a decedent’s representative for personal injuries caused by an automobile accident. Because of the death of the alleged wrongdoer the plaintiff must prove his claim “upon some competent satisfactory evidence other than the testimony of the injured person.” ORS 30.080.

This statute requires that “the injured person may not recover judgment unless he presents a prima facie case sufficient to go to the jury by evidence other than his own testimony.” Schnell v. Mullen, 222 Or 454, 457, 353 P2d 567 (1960); DeWitt v. Rissman, 218 Or 549, 346 P2d 104 (1959). The defendant…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Lohman v. LohmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Thomas v. DAD'S ROOT BEER, ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Branch v. LambertOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Ess v. GriffithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
  5. Startin v. MadsenUtah Supreme Court · 1951

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Molodyh v. Truck Insurance ExchangeOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Kabil Developments Corp. v. MignotOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Marshall v. MartinsonOregon Supreme Court · 1974

20 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