Legal Opinion

Markle v. Mulholland's, Inc.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1973PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*261HOLMAN, J.........

Plaintiff, was injured when the left rear tire of his automobile blew out, causing the vehicle to leave the highway. The tire had been purchased by plaintiff for $12.35 nine months earlier, after it had been recapped.- It had 5,000 to 6,000 miles of use at the time of the accident. Defendants are - the recapper, the wholesaler, and the retailer of -the recapped tire. At the completion of the testimony, -the trial court granted defendants’ motion for a directed-verdiet. Judgment was entered thereon, and plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff’s cause of action was pleaded in two counts:…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Heaton v. Ford Motor Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Wights v. Staff Jennings, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Chapman v. BrownDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1961
  5. Vanek v. KirbyOregon Supreme Court · 1969

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

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Phipps v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
  3. Phillips v. Kimwood MacHine CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Mike Bruce v. Martin-Marietta Corporation and Ozark Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1976
  5. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Arizona Supreme Court · 1984

48 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