Zimmerman v. Union Automobile Insurance
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBossman, J.
The assignments of error present no issues of pleading and appellant’s brief does not argue that the court erred in its reception of the testimony; hence we shall proceed directly to a statement of the uncontradicted evidence for the purpose of determining whether the court erred when it directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. April 11, 1927, one H. L. Johansen, who was the owner of an automobile and who sought to obtain protection against claims for injuries inflicted upon others through its operation, procured from the defendant a policy of casualty insurance in the amount of $5,000,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Tweeddale v. TweeddaleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Finkelberg v. Continental Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1923
- Rogers v. GosnellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Metropolitan Casualty Insurance v. AlbrittonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1926
- A. Rose & Son, Inc. v. Zurich General Accident, Etc., Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Spann v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co. of Dallas, Tex.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
- Clark Motor Co. v. United Pacific InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1943
- Scott v. Freeport Motor Casualty Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1945
- Goldstein v. BernsteinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Purcell v. Washington Fidelity National InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1934
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.