Legal Opinion

Kernin v. City of Coquille

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1933PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

The complaint avers that April 17, 1927, the common council of the defendant municipality directed the mayor and the city recorder to enter into a contract with the plaintiff, binding him to drill a well for the city; that June 6, 1927, the plaintiff and those two officials executed a contract wherein the plaintiff agreed to drill a well sufficient in capacity to furnish the city with 100,000 gallons of “pure, potable water” every twenty-four hours. The contract, a copy of which accompanies the complaint, requires that after the well had been completed to the satisfaction of the contractor…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Goldwater v. OltmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Twohy Bros. v. Ochoco Irrigation DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Dahlstrom v. . GemunderNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  4. Springfield Milling Co. v. Lane CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1874
  5. State Ex Rel. Townsend v. Mueller.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1932

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Layne-Western Co. v. Buchanan CountyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
  2. Mesirow v. DugganCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1957
  3. West Linn Corporate Park, L.L.C. v. City of West LinnOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  4. French v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Oregon Mesabi Corp. v. C. D. Johnson Lumber Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1947

10 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