John Francis Kilkenny

The case involved a 19-year-old plaintiff who suffered severe eye injury when a glass door light in a church door shattered upon impact from another person's hand. The plaintiff sued the manufacturers of the door light kit (Visador) and the glass (PPG) under theories of strict liability, warranty, and negligence. The court, applying Oregon's adoption of strict products liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, determined that the glass was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it failed to perform as safely as expected by users, leading to liability for both defendants. The court awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in general damages for her injuries, pain, and permanent loss of vision in one eye.

torts & liability

The case involved a dispute between plaintiff Stanley and defendant Onetta Boat Works over a contract to construct a 57-foot steel fishing vessel, including claims for breach, extra charges, labor performed, a preferred ship mortgage, unsecured notes, and related insurance policies for hull damage and loss of profits. Onetta counterclaimed for foreclosure of the mortgage, payment on notes and extras, while third-party claims and cross-claims addressed insurance coverage and potential indemnity from Northwest Marine. The court found no novation of the contract, determined that Onetta failed to maintain precise records of extras due to treating the project on a cost-plus basis, allowed Onetta recovery on certain valid extras with interest, and permitted plaintiff's counterclaims for 550 hours of labor at $3 per hour totaling $1,650 plus attorney fees. It ruled that foreclosure would depend on whether Onetta's mortgage and extras exceeded plaintiff's awards, with provisions for insurance recovery and interest calculations from specified dates.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned competing claims to ownership and security interests in two sets of Euclid dump trucks (the 71’s and 65’s) among General Electric Credit Corp. (GECC), R.A. Heintz Construction Co., Ingersoll-Rand Financial Corp., and a bankrupt equipment dealer (Fincham). Heintz purchased the 71’s from Fincham in good faith and traded in the 65’s as partial payment, after Ingersoll had obtained a pre-UCC chattel mortgage on the 71’s in Colorado and GECC later obtained a substituted interest in the 65’s. The court determined that Heintz qualified as a buyer in the ordinary course of business without actual knowledge of Ingersoll’s interest until after the transaction, that the UCC governed perfection and priority issues between the secured parties once effective in the relevant states, and that GECC’s interest in the 65’s was not cut off by Ingersoll’s prior claim; it also addressed the applicability of Colorado pre-Code law versus the UCC and the effect of filing requirements in Colorado and Oregon.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Osberg Construction Company, which submitted a bid and accompanying bond for a municipal dam construction contract with the City of The Dalles. After Osberg claimed errors in its bid calculations and attempted a late telegraphic modification or withdrawal, the City awarded the contract and forfeited the $24,998.75 bond when Osberg refused to execute it. Osberg sued to recover the bond, arguing mistake of fact under Oregon precedent. The court dismissed the suit, holding that the bid documents made the offer irrevocable and that no substantial mistake existed because the claimed omissions involved discretionary judgment rather than required items omitted from the plans. The court enforced the forfeiture provision as a valid contractual term absent fraud or other equitable grounds for relief.

business & regulatory

This case involved damage claims by a motel owner and its construction contractor against a building trades union for picketing and handbilling that allegedly constituted an unlawful secondary boycott under the National Labor Relations Act. The court held the union liable under 29 U.S.C. § 187 for violating Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and awarded nominal damages of $100 to the contractor after finding insufficient proof of actual losses. The decision rested on the preclusive effect of a prior NLRB unfair-labor-practice finding that had been enforced by the Ninth Circuit, together with the court's independent factual determination that the union's conduct threatened neutral parties to force them to cease doing business with the non-union contractor. The court rejected certain damage claims as unsupported or attributable to other unions' earlier picketing.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In this case, a guest passenger injured in a car accident sued the other driver for negligence causing her injuries. The defendant raised a defense that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and her damages could have been reduced by wearing an available seat belt. The court granted the plaintiff's pretrial motion to strike this allegation. It reasoned that Oregon's seat belt law does not require use of the belts, applies only to certain new vehicles, and does not create negligence per se or common-law liability for non-use, consistent with precedents insulating guests from driver negligence and decisions from other states.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerns a 1966 accident in which a tanker-trailer purchased from the defendant in 1958 separated from its tractor, ruptured while carrying gasoline, and caused a fire resulting in property damage. The plaintiff asserted claims based on negligence, breach of implied warranty, and strict liability. The court held that the implied-warranty claim was time-barred under the six-year statute of limitations running from delivery and was also precluded by a conspicuous contractual disclaimer, but that the negligence and strict-liability claims were timely because they accrue upon injury rather than delivery. It further ruled that strict liability in tort could apply to property damage where the parties were in privity and that the effect of the trailer's age and mileage presented factual questions for trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a bank's claim under a Bankers Blanket Bond insurance policy for a $75,000 loss after advancing funds on a loan secured by forged and counterfeit stock certificates pledged as collateral. The certificates were held by another bank acting as the plaintiff's agent, and the borrower was later convicted of forgery. The court ruled that the bond's coverage applied even though the insured bank did not have direct physical possession of the certificates, due to principles of agency and constructive possession. It further held that the plaintiff sustained a covered loss at the time the funds were advanced, without needing to first exhaust remedies against the borrower, and that ordinary negligence by the bank would not bar recovery absent bad faith.

business & regulatory

This case involved plaintiffs' motion to remand their lawsuit against Clear Fir Sales Co. (an assumed name of Fibreboard Corporation) to Oregon state court, arguing a lack of diversity of citizenship and no federal question. The court denied the motion to remand. It held that Fibreboard, incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in California, was not a citizen of Oregon despite registering assumed names and conducting under 6% of its business there, with all operations controlled from San Francisco and no officers residing in Oregon. The court reasoned that registering an assumed name or qualifying to do business in a state does not create citizenship for diversity purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), and the Oregon statute could not require surrender of removal rights.

procedurefederal power

The case involved Francis Wright and his corporation suing United States Rubber Company for breach of contract and promissory estoppel after the company withdrew promised financing for a tire business venture, leading to bankruptcy. The court determined that no valid unilateral or bilateral contract existed because the discussions were preliminary negotiations without definite terms or approval from the defendant's New York office, and the financing was conditional on such approval. Additionally, promissory estoppel did not apply as the plaintiff did not reasonably rely on an unconditional promise but proceeded out of desperation, and the promise lacked the required approval. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.

business & regulatory

The case involved a lawyer admitted to the Oregon bar in 1925 who was summarily suspended by the Oregon Supreme Court after a federal conviction for willful tax evasion, found in contempt for continuing to practice, and fined; he sued members of the Oregon Supreme Court, the state bar, and related officials claiming violations of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the action. It reasoned that federal district courts generally lack jurisdiction to review state disbarment proceedings, which are subject only to limited U.S. Supreme Court review via certiorari for due process or equal protection violations, and that state judges are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

The case consolidated challenges to two administrative hearings under the Surface Resources Act of 1955, which limited rights under post-1955 mining claims by allowing federal management of surface resources unless the claims were validated by a pre-Act discovery of valuable minerals. Claimants Converse and Independent Quick Silver Co. contested findings that their claims lacked sufficient evidence of such discoveries as of July 23, 1955, and raised issues including alleged bias by the hearing examiner, denial of due process, improper exclusion of evidence, and failure to prove a prudent-person standard for mineralization. The court reviewed the record and affirmed the Bureau of Land Management and Interior Department decisions, holding that the evidence showed only potential for future exploration rather than established valuable deposits, and that procedural challenges did not invalidate the hearings.

propertyprocedurefederal powerenvironment

The case involved a defamation claim by United Medical Laboratories, an Oregon clinical testing company, against CBS, Walter Cronkite, and other defendants over television and radio broadcasts and a news release reporting on a CBS investigation that found many mail-order labs produced inaccurate results on medical specimens sent through the mail. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint after reviewing the broadcast materials. The core reasoning was that the publications did not specifically refer to or identify the plaintiff (as the tested labs were outside New York and a displayed map excluded Oregon), and the court later denied rehearing or supplementation of the record under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

free speechtorts & liability

This case involves consolidated actions between Transnational Insurance Company and its former general agent Maclund, Inc., along with individual defendants Rosenlund and MacTarnahan, arising from a 1962 exclusive agency agreement for mobile home insurance in Washington and Oregon. Maclund sold its agency business to competitor Foremost in 1964 and agreed to steer future business to Foremost, prompting Transnational to allege breach of contract, non-compete provisions, and antitrust violations under Sherman Act §1, including claims of boycott. The court addressed multiple cross-motions for summary judgment on liability issues, granting Transnational relief on certain contract-based claims while ruling in favor of Foremost on the antitrust boycott allegation after reviewing the agreement terms, business activities, and lack of evidence of concerted refusal to deal. Core reasoning focused on the plain language of the agency contract requiring exclusive efforts for Transnational, the nature of the plant sale as a goodwill transfer, and the absence of facts establishing an illegal boycott under the Sherman Act, with some issues like the sixth cause reserved for further consideration.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns whether an Oregon federal district court acquired personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, including CBS and individual broadcasters, in a defamation action arising from radio, television, and press reports, based on service under Oregon's long-arm statute (ORS 14.035). The plaintiff alleged jurisdiction on grounds that the defendants transacted business in Oregon or committed a tortious act there. The court expressed tentative agreement that jurisdiction existed under both theories but stayed the proceedings to allow the Oregon Supreme Court to resolve the unsettled state-law questions via a declaratory judgment action. In a supplemental ruling, the court denied the motion to quash service as to most defendants while granting it for two individuals whose statements were not under their control.

proceduretorts & liabilityfree speech

This case is a patent infringement suit in which plaintiff RPTZ-Patco, Inc. alleged that defendant Pacific Inland Navigation Company infringed U.S. Patent No. 3,033,150 (the Pickrell Patent) covering a barge design with a V-shaped dry cargo hold and cofferdam allowing simultaneous transport of petroleum products and dry cargo in compliance with Coast Guard safety rules. The defendant challenged the patent's validity on grounds that prior art—including earlier Russell barges, the Russell Patent, the Umatilla barge, and longstanding Coast Guard cofferdam regulations—was not disclosed to the Patent Office and rendered the claimed invention obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The court found no deliberate misrepresentation by the patentee but concluded that consideration of the undisclosed prior art would have prevented issuance of the broad claims in suit. It therefore dismissed the infringement action, holding the patent invalid for obviousness. The decision rested on the view that combining known barge-construction elements and regulatory requirements did not constitute a non-obvious advance.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved the Union Pacific Railroad suing the Vale, Oregon Irrigation District for damage to its tracks and right-of-way on two Oregon branches, allegedly caused by water escaping or percolating from the defendant's irrigation canals on hillsides above the tracks, which triggered soil slides and heaving. The railroad asserted claims for money damages from specific incidents in 1961 and 1965 as well as equitable relief to halt ongoing trespasses from seepage. The court ruled for the plaintiff on all claims, awarding damages and ordering repairs or modifications to the canal system to prevent future harm, while retaining jurisdiction for later adjustments. The core reasoning rested on evidence that the canal's construction and operation introduced large volumes of water into an unstable slope, directly causing the slides and increased groundwater flow, with liability following regardless of negligence under state precedent on artificial water percolation injuring neighboring property.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involves multiple plaintiffs seeking court orders to compel the Secretary of the Interior to issue patents for parcels of public land selected under historical congressional scrip rights, which allowed exchanges for lands previously conveyed to the government. The Secretary classified the selected lands under the Taylor Grazing Act as more suitable for other uses such as recreation or sustained-yield forest management and thus ineligible for scrip selection, also rejecting one assignment of rights as invalid. The court reviewed the decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act after rejecting other jurisdictional claims, holding that the Secretary's classifications were discretionary, followed required procedures, and were supported by substantial evidence in most instances. It affirmed the Secretary's actions in all cases except one, where it found the scrip rights assignable as a matter of law and remanded for further classification review.

propertyfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned whether Willamette Valley Lumber Co. could deduct ad valorem taxes on timberland and standing timber that its predecessor had agreed to purchase under a 1946 contract with the Hills, under which the purchaser was obligated to pay the taxes. The taxpayer sought recovery of over $44,000 in federal income taxes paid for 1959 and 1960, claiming the deductions under IRC §164 (or alternatively §162), while the government argued the payments were additional costs of acquiring the timber rather than deductible taxes. The court analyzed Oregon statutes treating standing timber as a severable real property interest taxed separately to its owner, found no personal liability for the taxes on the land itself, and examined the contract's requirements that the purchaser build a mill and pay taxes as part of operations. Relying on precedent such as Giustina v. United States, the court concluded that the purchaser qualified as the owner entitled to the deduction because the taxes were imposed on its interest in the timber and land.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. against its insured, Martin Bros. Container & Timber Products Corp., seeking a ruling that Aetna had no duty to defend or indemnify Martin Bros. for multiple state-court lawsuits alleging property damage and personal injury from "flyash" emissions from a new steam-generating plant Martin Bros. installed and operated in Oakland, Oregon. The policies at issue, issued in Ohio and effective from 1960 to 1964, provided coverage for bodily injury and property damage caused by an "occurrence," defined to include continuous or repeated exposure to conditions unexpectedly causing injury, and required notice "as soon as practicable." The court ruled for Martin Bros. on all issues, holding that the emissions qualified as an occurrence, that Martin Bros. provided timely notice once it learned of widespread third-party claims in late December 1963, and that Aetna therefore had a duty to defend the underlying actions and pay the resulting judgments and settlements. The decision rested on the policy language, the facts regarding when Martin Bros. became aware of the claims, and settled principles of insurance interpretation under Oregon and Ohio law.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability