Legal Opinion

Quirk v. Ross

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 1970PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolman, J.

This was an action for damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of a one-ear accident. Plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a Mercedes-Benz automobile which was operated by the defendant Ross. Insofar as it is relevant to this appeal, plaintiff charged that Ross was grossly negligent in the operation of the vehicle and that the defendant Mercedes-Benz was negligent in the manner in which it constructed and designed the vehicle. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of the defendant Ross and a judgment of involuntary non-suit granted to the defendant…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Heaton v. Ford Motor Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Morrill v. RountreeOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Vanek v. KirbyOregon Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Tucker v. Unit Crane & Shovel Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Cluck Et Ux v. FishOregon Supreme Court · 1962

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Stuckey v. Young Exploration Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1978
  2. Russell v. Ford Motor Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Cutsforth v. KINZUA CORPORATIONOregon Supreme Court · 1973
  4. David v. Longenecker v. General Motors Corporation, a Corporation, Sharon Longenecker v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
  5. Parsons v. Ford Motor Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2002

22 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