Legal Opinion

Harris v. Hindman

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 1929PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEossman, J.

The first assignment of error is predicated upon the refusal of the Circuit Court to instruct the jury that the defendant was not responsible for the alleged cancerous condition referred to in the evidence. There is substantial evidence in the record that the defendant struck the plaintiff a severe blow in the corner of the right eye in the immediate vicinity of the lacrimal duct which opened a cut that bled freely; a physician, who was consulted for treatment, brought the edges of the wound together by a stitch. There is evidence that the injured area never healed completely, and that later…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Sloan v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
  2. Spain v. Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Tyson v. BoothMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
  4. Hamilton v. KelseyOregon Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Chambers v. Everding & FarrellOregon Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. HartOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Swain v. Oregon Motor StagesOregon Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Bradford v. BradfordOregon Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Canada v. ROYCEOregon Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Ziegler v. Alaska Portland Packers' Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API