State ex rel. Automobile Emporium, Inc. v. Murchison
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtTanzer, J.
Plaintiff has petitioned for rehearing, asserting that our holding that "Direct appeal is an adequate remedy unless the relator would suffer a special loss beyond the burden of litigation by being forced to trial” is inconsistent with prior cases. We did not attempt an exhaustive review of all mandamus caselaw, but this supplemental opinion reviewing some of the cases upon which it relies may be helpful in alleviating any confusion such as that embodied by the plaintiff’s contention.
First, plaintiff cites State ex rel Ricco v. Biggs, 198 Or 413, 255 P2d 1055 (1953), for its implication that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Ricco v. BiggsOregon Supreme Court · 1953
- State Ex Rel. Maizels v. JubaOregon Supreme Court · 1969
- Kirschbaum v. AbrahamOregon Supreme Court · 1973
- State Ex Rel. Drew v. SteinbockOregon Supreme Court · 1979
- Henderson v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Oregon Health Sciences University v. HaasOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- State Ex Rel. LeVasseur v. MertenOregon Supreme Court · 1984
- Longo v. PremoOregon Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. PelhamCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
- State v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 2026
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.