Legal Opinion

Bracht v. Palace Laundry Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 16, 1937PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBailey, J.

The plaintiff, Laura E. Bracht, instituted this action against the defendant, Palace Laundry Company, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her when struck by a delivery truck belonging to the defendant company. Prom a judgment entered upon verdict in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.

The facts are substantially the following: Mrs. Bracht, an elderly woman, was crossing the intersection of Eleventh avenue and Salmon street in the city of Portland, about 6:30 p. m. on January 21, 1935, proceeding in an easterly direction in the pedestrian lane on the .south side of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rayburn v. DayOregon Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Cline v. BushOregon Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Hinckley v. MarshOregon Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Maneff v. LamerOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Dermody v. FanningOregon Supreme Court · 1936

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Sherrard v. WerlineOregon Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Hammel v. RifeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1984
  3. Ferreira v. General Motors Corp.Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Stanich v. BUCKLEYOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Warner v. MAUSOregon Supreme Court · 1956

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