Legal Opinion

State v. Whiteaker

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1926PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBelt, J.

Whiteaker claimed to have invented an electrical device which would extract gold from the waters of Mono Lake, California. In order to promote this scheme certain “units of interest” were offered to the public. Defendant Jennings “had charge of the sales that were made.” One Pearl Williams — a “beauty culturist” — became interested as evidenced by the following writing:

“Be it known: That whereas, W. Harrison Whiteaker, having made a valuable mineral discovery, is desirous of obtaining financial assistance for the establishment of a plant in connection therewith, and for the defraying of…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
  2. People v. McCallaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  3. State v. WilsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
  4. State v. EvansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
  5. State v. FosterSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1900

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Monumental Properties, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. United States v. Bernard L. Barker, United States of America v. Eugenio R. MartinezCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1976
  3. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Timetrust, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1939
  4. Moerman v. Zipco, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1969
  5. Hopkins v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1949

46 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