STATE EX. REL. JONES v. Workman
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtButtler, J.
In this filiation proceeding under ORS 109.125 a jury determined that defendant was the father of a child bom to plaintiff out of wedlock. Defendant was ordered to pay for the past and future support of the child. He appeals.
Defendant contends, and plaintiff seems to concede, that this court must review the record de novo even though the trial was to a jury, which rendered a unanimous jury verdict. Because that question has never been decided, and because its resolution is important in the review of filiation proceedings, we consider it in spite of plaintiffs concession. The contention is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Kraxberger v. RogersOregon Supreme Court · 1962
- Mogul Transportation Co. v. LarisonOregon Supreme Court · 1947
- Blyth & Co., Inc. v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1955
- Sugarman v. OlsenOregon Supreme Court · 1969
- Paul v. MAZZOCCOOregon Supreme Court · 1960
3Cited by6 opinions
- STATE, DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. TrostCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
- Warren v. JoeckelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
- Norton v. MacDonaldCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
- STATE, DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. TrostCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
- Sasser v. DeLormeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.