Legal Opinion

Coghlan v. Miller

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 1922PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCOURT, J.

This is an action for damages for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff recovered judgment and defendant appeals.

Defendant instituted a criminal prosecution against the plaintiff and John A. Glatt by a criminal information, sworn to by defendant before T. F. Hayes, Justice of the Peace, at Woodburn, Oregon, in the following form:

“Gomes now Nicholas Miller who being first duly sworn, says that Charles Coghlan and John A. Glatt are guilty of the crime of assault upon another with a dangerous weapon committed as follows:

That said Charles Coghlan and John A. Glatt on the 17th day of June, 1919 in the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Powers v. HarlowMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
  2. State v. GodfreyOregon Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Power v. HarlowMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Stamper v. RaymondOregon Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Smith v. ReederOregon Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Lindsey v. NormetSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Paullus v. YARBROUGH ET UXOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  3. State v. LaurelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1970
  4. Lindsey v. NormetSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. State v. LaurelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API