Legal Opinion

Harpole v. Paeschke Farms, Inc.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 1974PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connell, C. J.

This is an action to recover damages alleged to have been caused to a erop growing on plaintiffs’ land. Plaintiffs allege that defendant applied a chemical *594spray to brush and weeds on its property in such a manner as to cause drops of chemical spray and vapors to fall on plaintiffs’ land, resulting in damage to plaintiffs’ crop of pole beans. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant and plaintiffs appeal.

Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a series of photographs on the ground that they were not authenticated or verified and in permitting…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. McDanielOregon Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Wulff v. Sprouse-Reitz Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1972
  3. State Highway Commission v. ArnoldOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Blue v. City of UnionOregon Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Farmers' National Bank v. WoodellOregon Supreme Court · 1900

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Mulley v. PeopleSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2009
  2. Streight v. ConroyOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  3. State v. StringerOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  4. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Valley InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  5. State v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989

5 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