Legal Opinion

Ail Et Ux. v. City of Portland

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1931PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

By assignment of error number 3, plaintiffs assert that the court erred in instructing the jury as follows:

“In cases where the uses of the street by the public are found by the city council to call for an arrangement that may have the effect of shutting off access to abutting property or rendering such access less convenient, the city may go forward and construct such improvement without being liable in any respect to the abutting property owner, though his property be rendered less valuable or the use thereof be less convenient.”

Assignment number 4 relates to an instruction reading:

“If,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Transportation Co. v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Brand v. Multnomah CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Willamette Iron Works v. Oregon Railway & Navigation Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Barrett v. Union Bridge Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Lowell v. Pendleton Auto Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. BurkOregon Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Oregon Investment Co. v. SchrunkOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  3. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Alderwoods (Oregon), Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Prosch v. City of La GrandeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API