Legal Opinion

Hill v. Wilson

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 17, 1928PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

The first, second, twelfth, eighteenth and nineteenth assignments of error are predicated upon the plea of the statute of limitations constituting defendant’s first, further and separate answer. The contention of defendant is that since the services for which plaintiff claims compensation were rendered in 1918 and the sixth amended complaint upon which the action was tried was filed in 1925 the statute of limitations had expired. Defendant alleged in his first, further and separate answer: “that more than six years have elapsed and passed since the alleged transactions set forth in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. West v. EleyOregon Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Inland Construction Co. v. City of PendletonOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Obermeier v. Mortgage Co. Holland-AmericaOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Mertens v. Northern State BankOregon Supreme Court · 1913

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State Highway Commission v. DealOregon Supreme Court · 1951
  2. City of Portland Ex Rel. Donohue & Fleskes Corp. v. Hoffman Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1979
  3. McKee v. Capitol Dairies, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Twohy Bros. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
  5. Carlson v. BlumensteinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1981

11 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