Legal Opinion

Kollock v. Barnard

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1926PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PEE CUEIAM.

The question now submitted to the court upon the record is whether or not the writ of mandamus based upon the facts which are undisputed shall issue as prayed for.

This proceeding is brought by the plaintiff as the owner and holder of one of the bonds of the district and is brought on behalf of himself and all defendants similarly situated. The fact of the requirement of the district for the year 1926, as to interest and bond maturities, and the fact of the refusal of the officers of the district, and of the County Court to make such levy, are admitted.

It is a well-settled law that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Noble v. Yancey.Oregon Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Richardson v. Investment Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913
  3. City of Astoria v. CorneliusOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Gibbons v. Hood River Irr. Dist.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Buell v. Jefferson County CourtOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Parks v. BOARD OF CTY. COM'RS OF TILLAMOOK CTY.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1972
  3. United States v. AhoDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1944
  4. State Ex Rel. Sondheim v. McClainOregon Supreme Court · 1931
  5. City of Woodburn v. DomogallaOregon Tax Court · 1963

6 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