Legal Opinion

MATTILA ET UX v. Olsvick

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1961PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWarner, J.

This is an action for damages arising out of an alleged breach of contract for services. The case was tried before the court without a jury. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs appeal. There is no appearance in behalf of the defendant.

Plaintiffs were the owners of a lot upon which they desired to build and did build a home. Their deed described the property as Lot 16, “except that portion thereof which lies northwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and 14 feet southeasterly from the line between Lots 15 and 16, all in Block 4, West Slope, in the City of Astoria.”

The…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McLeod v. DespainOregon Supreme Court · 1907
  2. La Grande National Bank v. BlumOregon Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Cram v. TipperyOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  4. St. Clair v. Jelinek Et Ux.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Webber v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Jewell v. ComptonOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Randall Webber, Jr. v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API