Legal Opinion
Parman v. Parman
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided May 20, 1919PublishedCited by 3 opinions
From Wheeler: Fred W. Wilson, Judge. In Banc. This is a suit for divorce. The district attorney was not served with summons, but personally appeared, and his appearance was noted in the record at the trial. There was a decree dismissing the suit, and plaintiff appeals. The district attorney was not served with notice of the appeal, and defendant moves to dismiss the appeal for that reason.
1Per curiam
1. In De Foe v. De Foe, 88 Or. 549 (169 Pac. 128, 172 Pac. 980), this court, speaking of the appearance of a district attorney without service of summons, or filing any pleading, said:
“While such appearance of the district attorney confers jurisdiction, it does not in the absence of some motion or other pleading filed by him, confer upon the state any right of appeal, or any right to be heard further in the case,” etc.
We still adhere to this statement of the law, and the motion to dismiss will be overruled.
Overruled.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- De Foe v. De FoeOregon Supreme Court · 1917
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hiltbrand v. HiltbrandIdaho Supreme Court · 1948
- Keeley v. KeeleyOregon Supreme Court · 1920
- Oliver v. OliverOregon Supreme Court · 1959