Legal Opinion

Heintz v. SINNER ET UX

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 28, 1962PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.

(Pro tempore)

The appellants bought a motel from the plaintiff. This is a suit by the plaintiff seller for a declaration of his rights and obligations under the contract of sale.

The plaintiff originally purchased the motel from the Mazzoccos. Under that contract of sale plaintiff was to pay $1,350 per month on the balance. Plaintiff later sold his interest in the motel to Mr. and Mrs. Yeazey and Ruth M. Starkey. That contract of sale provided that the buyers were to make the payments plaintiff Heintz owed the Mazzoccos. Heintz was to be paid by the buyers an additional sum at the rate of $200…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Nevada Ditch Co. v. BennettOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Cole v. FOGELOregon Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. v. FlaggOregon Supreme Court · 1946

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Combe v. Warren's Family Drive-Inns, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Matter of Estate of HurlbuttCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
  3. Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of PhoenixOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Oregon Bank v. BaardsonOregon Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Cheryl Wilcox Property Management v. AppelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

8 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