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

  1. State v. StoneOregon Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Ramp v. OsborneOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Neis v. WhitakerOregon Supreme Court · 1906
  4. McGilchrist v. Portland E. & E. Ry. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1916

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Williams v. Portland General Electric Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Voight v. NybergOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Emmons v. SkaggsOregon Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Voight v. NybergOregon Supreme Court · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API