The case involved a personal injury lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged negligence by the defendant and obtained a jury verdict awarding $88,227.47 in damages. On appeal, the plaintiff moved to strike the defendant's bill of exceptions, arguing it had been improperly presented to the clerk of Grant County rather than Sherman County and filed one day after the 60-day statutory deadline under ORS 19.100. The court determined that tender to the incorrect clerk did not satisfy the statute and that no extension had been sought, rendering the bill untimely. The court also examined an assignment of error concerning a jury instruction that treated violations of the basic safety code as negligence per se, finding the objection insufficient and any abstract language non-prejudicial. The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.
In Guthrie v. Muller, the plaintiff sued restaurant operators for negligence after a folding table leg fell and struck her while seated, causing arm, shoulder, and wrist injuries; the jury awarded her damages, but the trial court denied defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and granted their alternative motion for a new trial. On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed both decisions, holding that substantial evidence of negligence, causation, and damages existed to warrant jury consideration, precluding JNOV. The court also identified reversible trial errors, such as the injection of insurance into the proceedings and a jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur that incorrectly implied a shift in the burden of proof to defendants, justifying the new trial.
The case involved Ralph M. Hicks, who was convicted by a jury of burglary not in a dwelling for breaking into a food market with intent to steal. After the conviction, the state initiated habitual criminal proceedings based on two prior robbery convictions from other states, resulting in an increased sentence of ten years. On appeal, Hicks challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the burglary conviction and argued that the habitual criminal enhancement required a grand jury indictment under the Oregon Constitution. The court determined there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on burglary and held that an information was constitutionally adequate for the sentencing enhancement because it did not constitute a new criminal charge. The judgment and sentence were affirmed.
This case involved newspaper wholesale dealers suing the Journal Publishing Company and two newspaper guilds to enforce their exclusive territory dealer agreements with the Journal and to prevent the guilds from using strike threats or picketing to force termination of those agreements. The guilds claimed the dealer contracts violated a 1951 collective bargaining agreement covering circulation department employees, and an arbitration award had favored the union, though the dealers were not parties to the arbitration. The trial court ruled for the plaintiffs by enjoining breach of the dealer contracts and restraining union coercion, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the dealer agreements were valid contracts with third parties whose rights could not be eliminated by the Journal's later collective bargaining agreement or arbitration, and the union contract did not cover or bind the independent dealers.
This case involved a drainage district's attempt to foreclose on certificates of delinquency based on assessments levied against land while it was owned by the United States, with the land later acquired by the City of Portland and the State of Oregon. The circuit court ruled for the defendants, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the assessments were invalid because they were made against federal property during periods of United States ownership, and federal sovereign immunity prevents state or local districts from imposing such liens or assessments on federal land. The certificates therefore did not create enforceable obligations against the subsequent state and municipal owners. The decision was limited to the assessments during federal ownership and did not address later periods.
This case involved a suit by builder Floyd D. Culver to foreclose a mechanic’s lien against homeowners John and Marie Rendahl for unpaid costs plus 10% under a written remodeling contract for their house in Manzanita, Oregon. The trial court denied the lien, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the contract was on a cost-plus basis without a $6,500 cap, that no fraud or overpayment was proven, and that the plaintiff substantially performed. The court found the lien valid but reduced the balance from $634.11 to $384.11 to account for minor defects in workmanship, awarded $200 in attorney fees, and ordered foreclosure of the lien on the property. The decision rested on the signed contract language, evidence of actual costs, the defendants’ lack of contemporaneous complaints, and the absence of proof supporting their counterclaims of fraud or mistake.
