Legal Opinion

Hinckley v. Marsh

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1928PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

Defendants complain because the witness, Beulah Hinckley, was permitted to answer the following question:

“And will you tell the jury how your mother has been since she was hurt, as compared with her condition before?”

The objection was based on the ground that there was no claim for permanent injury in the complaint. The complaint contains this allegation: “ * * and she has been rendered permanently sick and sore.”

That is sufficient allegation of permanent injuries to sustain the ruling of the court.

Defendants moved for a judgment of nonsuit upon the ground that the evidence presented was not…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Twinn v. NobleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. Trainer v. SaundersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  3. Casto v. HansenOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Weihe v. Rathjen Mercantile Co.California Court of Appeal · 1917
  5. Rosenthal v. Philadelphia Phonograph Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Larkins v. Utah Copper Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Keys v. GriffithOregon Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Sherrard v. WerlineOregon Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Bracht v. Palace Laundry Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Brady v. SchnitzerOregon Supreme Court · 1931

2 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