Legal Opinion

State v. Mageske

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 9, 1926PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcBride, C. J.

The defendants having been convicted of the crime of unlawfully possessing mash, wort and wash fit for distillation, attempted to appeal to this court. The notice of appeal was directed to and served upon the district attorney, but no notice was served upon the clerk of the court.

Section 1610, Or. L., provides that an appeal must be taken by service of a notice, in writing, on the clerk of the court where the judgment-roll is filed. Section 1611 provides that a similar notice must be served upon the district attorney for the county in which the judgment-roll is filed. In State v. Berger, 51…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. BergerOregon Supreme Court · 1908

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. State v. DennisOregon Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Fall River Valley Irrigation District v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Gowin v. HeiderOregon Supreme Court · 1964
  4. State v. HartfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  5. State v. SilvermanOregon Supreme Court · 1934

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