Legal Opinion

Bennett v. State Industrial Accident Commission

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 9, 1955PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLusk, J.

The attorney general, appearing for the respondent, State Industrial Accident Commission, moved for a continuance of the oral argument of this case on the ground that Mr. Ben Anderson, of the firm of Anderson, Franklin & Landye, who are attorneys of record for the appellant, is a member of the legislative assembly and in his representation of the appellant is acting in contravention of Art. XV, § 7 of the Constitution, which reads:

“No state officers or members of the legislative assembly shall directly or indirectly receive *277a fee, or be engaged as counsel, agent, or attorney in the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Butterfield v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Eastern & Western Lumber Co. v. PattersonOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  3. United Contracting Co. v. DubyOregon Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Mohler Et Ux. v. Fish CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Pacific Fruit & Produce Co. v. Oregon Liquor Control CommissionDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1941

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Mark v. STATE, DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFECourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  2. Sprague v. StraubOregon Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Johnson v. SAIF Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Manning v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  5. Johnson v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2006

4 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