This case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by plaintiff Elbert McCarty, a highway repair crew member, against defendants Arnold Hedges and Charles Brohlin after McCarty was struck by a vehicle while working on the road. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff based on a jury verdict, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Procedurally, the court denied a motion to strike one defendant's brief, holding that a single bill of exceptions incorporating the trial transcript could be used by both appellants. On the merits, the court found no evidence supporting a contributory negligence defense and upheld the submission of negligence claims, including failure to maintain vehicle control, to the jury based on testimony about signals and driving speed.
This case is a habeas corpus proceeding in which a prisoner convicted of second-degree murder in state court challenged the conviction as void, claiming the state lacked jurisdiction because he is a tribal Indian and the homicide occurred on the Klamath Indian reservation, with exclusive federal jurisdiction asserted notwithstanding Public Law 280. The court first considered whether the petition became moot after the prisoner's transfer from county jail to the state penitentiary, holding that constructive custody remained with the sheriff for purposes of the appeal. The opinion then examined the history of congressional termination of federal supervision over specific tribes, including the Klamath, and the effect of Public Law 280 in extending state criminal laws and jurisdiction to reservation Indians, concluding that the state conviction was valid and affirming dismissal of the writ.
This case involved an appeal by a widower from a probate court order denying his petitions to set aside a probate homestead and certain exempt personal property from his deceased wife's estate under ORS 116.010. The denial was based on a prenuptial agreement executed the day before their marriage, in which the parties agreed to keep their separate properties distinct, bar claims of curtesy and dower, and make no claims to each other's separate property either during their lives or afterward. The court interpreted the agreement's plain language as barring the widower's statutory claims to the homestead and exemptions, even though the property would otherwise qualify, and held the agreement valid and enforceable under Oregon law authorizing such prenuptial contracts. The appellate court affirmed the probate court's decision dismissing the petitions.
In State v. Ellison, the defendant was indicted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and moved to dismiss the indictment under ORS 134.120, arguing he was not brought to trial in the next term of court after the indictment was found. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that general orders continuing the case from the January to the April term were sufficient to show good cause for the delay. The court reasoned that such orders are presumptively based on good cause under statutes like ORS 41.360, shifting the burden to the defendant to present rebuttal evidence, which was not done here. The decision also noted procedural issues with the appellate record but reached the same result on the merits.
The case involved a worker's compensation claim by Burrows against the State Industrial Accident Commission for a back injury sustained while lifting an I-beam at work on August 18, 1955. The trial court set aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and granted judgment for the defendant, which the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the evidence and pleadings failed to establish an injury by accident caused by violent or external means under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, as the plaintiff's description was speculative regarding whether his foot gave way or something under him, and amendments to the complaint improperly altered the theory presented to the Commission. The plaintiff was limited to the facts and issues raised before the Commission, and no medical testimony supported the claim.