Legal Opinion
Houston v. Maunula
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided May 24, 1927PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.
Assigned errors Nos. 1 and 2 are based upon the order of the court sustaining an objection to the following questions propounded on cross-examination to the driver of the automobile:
“Then all in the world you had to do then was just to switch that wheel over four inches, not four feet, and you didn’t do it, did you?”
This question was argumentative. Great latitude had been allowed counsel for plaintiff in cross-examining said witness. The court did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the objection to that question.
“So then .these lights that you saw, as I gather, must have been across the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. StoneOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Ramp v. OsborneOregon Supreme Court · 1925
- Neis v. WhitakerOregon Supreme Court · 1906
- McGilchrist v. Portland E. & E. Ry. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1916
3Cited by4 opinions
- Williams v. Portland General Electric Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1952
- Voight v. NybergOregon Supreme Court · 1959
- Emmons v. SkaggsOregon Supreme Court · 1931
- Voight v. NybergOregon Supreme Court · 1959