Legal Opinion

City of Hillsboro v. James & Yost, Inc.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 26, 1965PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.

Defendant contracted with plaintiff City to furnish and lay concrete pipe for sewer extensions. The City brought an action for damages, contending that' the work was done defectively. The jury found for the City and assessed its damages at $60,000. Defendant appeals.

The first three assignments of error concern evidence which was admitted over defendant contractor’s objection.

I

The specifications call for leakage and infiltration tests:

“On completion of a section of sewer between manholes or otherwise the Engineer may require that the ends be bulkheaded and the pipe subjected to a hydrostatic…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State Highway Commission v. Superbilt Manufacturing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Seaside, City of v. RandlesOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Foster v. Agri-Chem, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Duncan v. BARTLEOregon Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Dennis v. WillaminaOregon Supreme Court · 1916

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. City of Columbia v. C.F.W. Construction Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1977
  2. State v. CraceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1976
  3. Schmeck v. BogatayOregon Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Hall v. WarringtonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API