Dondeneau v. State Industrial Accident Commission
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
COSHOW,. J.
We commend the attorneys far the litigants in this appeal for reducing the issue to one controversy. This method of presenting the case relieves the court of a large amount of time often occupied in searching authorities and considering questions concerning which no dispute should arise. The statement of fact upon which, the action was tried is brief and included only matters necessary to be considered in determining the one legal question involved. With commendable candor the learned Attorney General in his well-prepared statement and brief specifically states that the claim of…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Caldwell v. Travelers Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1924
- Tintic Milling Co. v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1922
- United Paperboard Co. v. LewisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1917
- McGlinchey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1888
- H. P. Hood & Sons v. Maryland Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Lamm v. Silver Falls Timber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Olson v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1960
- Seattle Can Co. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1928
- Ramsay v. Sullivan Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1931
- Cannella v. Gulf Refining Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1934
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.