Legal Opinion

Yamhill County Mutual Telephone Co. v. Yamhill Electric Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 1924PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

There are two reasons asserted by plaintiff in its complaint against the operating of defendant’s power line. First, plaintiff asserts that the force of electricity carried over the power line will be snch that its consequent magnetic field will envelop the telephone wires causing the telephone wires to receive such electricity by induction.

The second is that the power company intends to and will connect its line with an old power line in Amity which is in poor condition and has contacts with the ground, and these conditions will cause electricity to be communicated to appellant’s telephone…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. SandersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
  2. Evans v. Reading Chemical Fertilizing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
  3. Hoyt v. JeffersMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  4. Cumberland Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. United Electric Railway Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Chicago, Lake Shore & South Bend Railway Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1910

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Southwestern Public Service Co. v. MooreTexas Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Moundsville Water Co. v. Moundsville Sand Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Hale v. Farmers Electric Membership CorporationNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1940
  5. McCulloch County Electric Coop., Inc. v. HallCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1939

2 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