Legal Opinion

Vale v. Campbell

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 12, 1928PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

It has been so often held by this court that the order of the court on the question of actual bias of a prospective juror is discretionary, that such ruling should be considered the settled law of the state. A leading case announcing this principle is State v. Armstrong, 43 Or. 207 (73 Pac. 1022), quoted at length with approval in State v. Brumfield, 104 Or. 506, 525 et seq. (209 Pac. 120.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling plaintiff’s objection to the juror in the instant case.

Plaintiff complains of the court’s ruling permitting defendant to cross-examine plaintiff’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. ArmstrongOregon Supreme Court · 1903
  2. State v. BrumfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Yarbrough v. CarlsonOregon Supreme Court · 1921

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Sinz v. OwensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Call v. City of BurleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Lambert v. Sisters of St. Joseph of PeaceOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  4. State v. CookOregon Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Maryland Casualty Co. v. DickenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935

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