Legal Opinion

Kantola v. Lovell Auto Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 24, 1937PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRand, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for injuries received in a collision be tween an automobile in which she was riding and one belonging to the defendant, which was then being driven by one John Kildall, a boy about 15% years of age. It is alleged in the complaint, and for the purpose of this case we shall assume, that the boy’s negligence caused the accident. The case is here upon an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The defendant is a corporation engaged in the business of buying and selling new and used cars in Astoria and the car in question was a used…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Judson v. Bee Hive Auto Service Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Consor v. AndrewOregon Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Miller v. Service and Sales, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Eklof v. WaterstonOregon Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Steele v. HemmersOregon Supreme Court · 1935

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Wiebe v. SeelyOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Heinicke Instruments Company, a Corporation v. Republic Corporation, a Corporation, and Samuel N. BergmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
  3. Kowaleski v. KowaleskiOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Hopfer v. StaudtOregon Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Nava v. Truly Nolen Exterminating of Houston, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1984

16 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