Legal Opinion

Young v. Gard

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 1929PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

This case is well presented by briefs and oral arguments. We approach the question involved with an appreciation of its importance both to the litigants herein and to a considerable portion of the public. The main contention hinges upon the claim of plaintiffs that the contract granting an option by the directors of the irrigation district to the Ralph Schneeloch Company, which we term the company, was wholly void as not authorized by the Irrigation District Law, countered by the contention of defendants that the same constituted a valid binding contract. It is the claim of defendants that…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Revert v. HesseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Twohy Bros. v. Ochoco Irrigation DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  4. J. H. Milliken & Co. v. Callahan CountyTexas Supreme Court · 1887
  5. American Surety Co. v. Hill CountyTexas Commission of Appeals · 1924

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Burt v. BlumenauerOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  2. State v. DubinaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
  3. City of Reedsport v. HUBBARD ET UX.Oregon Supreme Court · 1954
  4. City of Keizer v. Lake Labish Water Control DistrictCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  5. Vinton v. HoskinsOregon Supreme Court · 1944

6 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