Legal Opinion

Riggs v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1928PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

A third amended answer was filed by defendant. Motions to strike a portion of the former answers were interposed by plaintiff and the ruling thereon assigned as error. As the pleadings to which the motions were directed have been superseded by an amended answer and are no longer a part of the record, we cannot consider this assignment. Plaintiff interposed a demurrer to defendant’s third amended answer, which the trial court overruled and which ruling is assigned as error.

Before noticing the allegations of the answer, it may be stated that the rule appears to be in such cases, of the alleged…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Francis v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1927
  2. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
  3. Astoria v. Astoria & Columbia River R.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Fenton v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Taxicab Motor Co. v. Pacific Coast Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Pacific Indemnity Co. v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
  2. Bailey v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1970
  3. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Crosetti Bros.Oregon Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Finkle v. Western Automobile InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1930
  5. Employers Ins. Co. v. BrooksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947

10 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