Legal Opinion

Mattechek v. Pugh

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1935PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

The property which the plaintiff claims the defendants converted to their use is described in the amended complaint as “16 Electro-Kold electric refrigerators, . . . electric light fixtures, 1 heating plant, . . We omit numerous other articles consisting of mattresses, davenports, rugs, tables, etc,, which with the articles just mentioned comprised the furnishings of a small apartment house located in the city of Salem and known as the Olympic Apartments.

The first contention argued by the defendants presents the issue whether the articles mentioned in the above quoted language were fixtures…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Dippold v. Cathlamet Timber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Blake-McFall Co. v. WilsonOregon Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Landigan v. MayerOregon Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Wutke v. YoltonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
  5. Rutherford v. JamesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Bagdasarian v. GragnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Krause v. Eugene Dodge, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Hayes Oyster Co. v. DulcichCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  4. Russell v. Golden Rule Mining Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Plourd v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1975

12 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