Legal Opinion

French v. State Industrial Accident Commission

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 1937PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBossman, J.

Two issues only are argued in the plaintiff’s (appellant’s) brief: (a) The trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed to have been legally married; and (b) the •plaintiff’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto should have been sustained. The plaintiff claims that she and one George French contracted a common-law marriage in Idaho. The defendants do not deny that common-law marriages may be lawfully contracted in that state, but both parties agree that such marriages cannot be legally contracted in either…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Mockowik v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
  2. Judson v. Bee Hive Auto Service Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Tanner v. Lindell Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1904
  4. Riska v. Union Depot RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
  5. State ex rel. Mulholland v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Wiebe v. SeelyOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Kantola v. Lovell Auto Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Boykin v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Summerville v. GillespieOregon Supreme Court · 1947
  5. National Fuel Co. v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Colorado · 1950

4 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