Hollopeter v. Palm
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.
The defendant demurred to plaintiff’s complaint for the reason, it being an action for damages, that it was necessary for plaintiff to allege in the body of the complaint that he was damaged on account of the injuries alleged in detail therein. The ad damnum clause in the allegations of the complaint is entirely wanting. In the demand for judgment “the plaintiff prays the judgment of this court against the defendant in the full sum of $300 for said medical aid and said expenses so incurred by plaintiff, and for a judgment in the further sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for said…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bartlett v. Odd FelLows' Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Riser v. WaltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Leavenworth, Northern & Southern Railway Co. v. WilkinsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
- Bank of British Columbia v. City of Port TownsendWashington Supreme Court · 1897
- International & Great Northern Railway Co. v. CulpepperCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1974
- Hollopeter v. PalmOregon Supreme Court · 1930
- Walker Ex Rel. Walker v. BurkhamNevada Supreme Court · 1945