Legal Opinion

Hunt v. Ring

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 8, 1928PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

Defendant bases his appeal upon the refusal of the trial court to grant his motion for a directed verdict. The motion reads:

“I will also introduce a motion for a directed verdict on the ground that there is no evidence sufficient to permit this case to go to the jury, no evidence of proper damage to go to the jury, and that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”

This presses upon our attention two questions, i. e., the sufficiency of the complaint, and the evidence of damages. If the facts set forth by the complaint are true, these facts were sufficient…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Shappirio v. GoldbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  2. Cawston v. SturgisOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Starkweather v. BenjaminMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  4. Linebaugh v. Portland Mortgage Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1925
  5. J. C. Corbin Co. v. PrestonOregon Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Blue v. City of UnionOregon Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Heise v. Pilot Rock Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Mollencop v. City of SalemOregon Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Libby Creek Logging, Inc. v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Oja v. LeblancOregon Supreme Court · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API