Legal Opinion

Buck v. Columbia Agricultural Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1923PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcBRIDE, C. J.

The law as to the modicum of proof necessary to establish fraud is well settled and counsel do not disagree in respect to that. Particularly in cases of this kind where the alleged fraud is not constructive, but deliberate and intentional, clear and satisfactory proof is required to establish it.

“While it is not necessary, in order to sustain an allegation of fraud, that the evidence should be so decisive as to leave no doubt, unless it be in the case of an attempt to overturn a writing, the rule requiring clear and satisfactory evidence. appears to mean more than is meant by satisfactory…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Dizick v. Umpqua Community CollegeOregon Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Castleman v. StrykerOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance v. N. B. Lesher, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Todd v. HannaOregon Supreme Court · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API