Legal Opinion

Wemme v. First Church of Christ, Scientist

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1925PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

The Attorney General of the state was made a party by order of the Circuit Court. He appeared in the case by a duly appointed- assistant. His theory of the case was upheld by this court. It is now too late, in our judgment, to question his authority so to do. We do not deem it necessary to enter into the discussion, so ably presented by the learned attorneys for the churches, as to whether or not the constitutional amendment revising the judicial department of the state, and adopted by the people in 1910, amended Section 17 of Article VII of the original Constitution, providing for…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. MacKenzie v. Trustees of the PresbyterySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1905
  2. Burbank v. BurbankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
  3. Duffill v. Los Angeles Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Mining Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Wemme v. First Church of ChristOregon Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Waterbury Trust Co. v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1944
  2. Monroe v. WinnWashington Supreme Court · 1943
  3. State Ex Rel. Joseph v. MannixOregon Supreme Court · 1930
  4. E. Henry Wemme Co. v. SellingOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Wemme v. NoyesOregon Supreme Court · 1930

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