City of Molalla v. COOVER ET UX.
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBeand, C. J.
The plaintiff City of Molalla seeks mandatory injunction to compel the defendants to remove obstructions from a public street in the city. It is alleged that defendants have constructed fences and a small outbuilding in the street; that the use of the street is necessary and that the plaintiff has demanded the removal of the obstructions, with which demand defendants have refused to comply. The answer alleges facts on which the defendants predicate a claim of estoppel. The reply is a general denial. After trial, a mandatory injunction issued in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. The…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Public Market Co. v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1942
- Cabell v. City of Cottage GroveOregon Supreme Court · 1942
- Oregon v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1908
- Rohde v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1923
- Lowell v. Pendleton Auto Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1927
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Coos County v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Boise City v. SinselIdaho Supreme Court · 1952
- SWEET v. Irrigation Canal Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1953
- Douglas County v. Umpqua Valley Grange, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
- Ogar v. City of HainesAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.