Legal Opinion
Sullivan v. Mountain States Power Co.
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided January 20, 1932PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.
A consideration of the aforementioned assignments of error will be greatly facilitated by a review of the evidence favorable to the plaintiff. Since a motion for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict is controlled by the evidence favorable to the plaintiff (Saylor v. Enterprise Electric Co., 110 Or. 231 (222 P. 304, 223 P. 725); Brady v. Oregon Lumber Co., 117 Or. 188 (243 P. 96, 45 A. L. R. 812); Cooper v. North Coast Power Co., 117 Or. 652 (244 P. 665, 245 P. 317); Burton v. Abbett Tinning & Roofing Co., 120 Or. 536 (252 P. 973)); we shall confine our review largely to that part of the…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Perham v. Portland Electric Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1898
- Sharkey v. SkiltonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
- Campbell v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Boyd v. Portland Electric Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1901
- Jeffress v. Virginia Railway & Power Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1920
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Nick Rhoades v. State of IowaSupreme Court of Iowa · 2014
- Hillman v. Northern Wasco County PUDOregon Supreme Court · 1958
- Wiebe v. SeelyOregon Supreme Court · 1959
- Fullerton v. LammOregon Supreme Court · 1945
- Levi v. SW La. Elec. Membership Co-Op.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1989
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.