Legal Opinion

Wiedeman v. Campbell

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 12, 1923PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

At the close of the testimony both parties moved for a directed verdict. We will hereafter refer to appellant William Campbell as defendant, although there are other defendants named, who did not appeal.

Defendant assigns that the trial court erred in allowing plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict in his favor, and denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict in favor of defendant. There is little or no question in regard to the facts. Questions of law determine the controversy. Defendant maintains that plaintiff cannot recover, for the reason that when plaintiff purchased the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. First Nat. Bank v. BachOregon Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Briedwell v. HendersonOregon Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Swank v. MoisanOregon Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Carroll v. Grande Ronde Electric Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Wilson & Hollenbeck v. U. S. Lumber & Box Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1923

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Parke v. FranciscusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Tomasek v. Oregon State Highway CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Godell v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  4. First Nat. Bk. of Prineville v. ConroyOregon Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Skid Evans, Inc. v. Patten, SheriffUtah Supreme Court · 1931

1 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