Legal Opinion

Butenshon v. SHOESMITH

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 7, 1951PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLusk, J.

The plaintiff, E. M. Butenshon, sued the defendant and appellant, Ivan A. Shoesmith, and the defendant, Beldon Hall, to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff when he was struck by an automobile operated by the defendant Hall. There was a verdict and judgment against both defendants from which Shoesmith alone has appealed.

The sufficiency of the evidence of Hall’s negligence is not disputed. The only question for our consideration is whether there is any substantial evidence in the record which would authorize a finding that, at the time of the accident, Hall was the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Dalrymple v. Covey Motor Car Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Andres v. CoxMissouri Court of Appeals · 1930
  3. Neff v. BrandeisNebraska Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Kantola v. Lovell Auto Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Miller v. Service and Sales, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1934

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Wiebe v. SeelyOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Kowaleski v. KowaleskiOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Hopfer v. StaudtOregon Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Jones v. HerrCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
  5. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Sask. Gov. Ins. OfficeOregon Supreme Court · 1964

3 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