Scott v. Ford (1908)
green
· 119 citation events
across 17 courts.
Showing the 10 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1909 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
190919672026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
Co. v. Reid, 13 Wall. 269, 270 , [ 20 L.Ed. 570 ]; Scott v. Ford, 52 Or. 288, 296 [ 97 P. 99 ].” The statute discussed in that case was section 3229 of the Revised Statutes.
green
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Spencer (1910)
Co., 51 Or. 583, 585 ( 94 Pac. 36 : 95 Pac. 498 ); Scott v. Ford, 52 Or. 288, 295 ( 97 Pac. 99 .) 4.
green
Bank of California National Ass'n v. Holman (1937)
A. 469); same case, 52 Or. 288, 294 ( 97 P. 99 ); Thorsen v. Hooper, 57 Or. 75, 80 ( 109 P. 388 ); Smith v. Rubel, supra. Likewise where a donor has been induced through misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, exercised by the donee to make a gift, the donor may recover on the principle that no one shall be allowed to obtain any benefit arising from his own fraud or wrongful act: Smith v. Rubel, supra; 2 Kent’s Com. star paging 440.
green
Hersey v. Gegenheimer (1925)
The courts of this state cannot take judicial notice of what the statutory law of another state is: Levine v. Levine, 95 Or. 94, 104 ( 187 Pac. 609 ); Rainey v. Rudd, 82 Or. 461, 464 ( 160 Pac. 1168 ); Scott v. Ford, 52 Or. 288, 294 ( 97 Pac. 99 ); De Vall v. De Vall, 57 Or. 128, 137, par. 8 ( 109 Pac. 755 , 110 Pac. 705 ).
green
Twohy Bros. v. Ochoco Irrigation District (1922)
In Scott v. Ford, 52 Or. 288, 296 ( 97 Pac. 99 ), in referring to this rule of construction, “The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another,” the court adopts the following from 19 Cyc. 26: “Whenever a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular form, it necessarily includes in itself a negative; viz., that the thing shall not be done otherwise. ’ ’ This maxim is applied by Sutherland: “Enabling statutes, on the principle of expressio tmius est exclusio alter…
green
Calkins v. Lane County (1922)
The market road fund is established for a specific purpose, and the money cannot be used for any other purpose than that provided hy the stat ute: 36 Cyc. 1106; Scott v. Ford, 52 Or. 288, 296 ( 97 Pac. 99 ); Bowers v. Neil, 64 Or. 104 ( 128 Pac. 433 ).
green
Levine v. Levine (1920)
The plaintiff pleaded certain sections of the Minnesota statute and by so doing brought herself within the rule adhered to in Scott v. Ford, 52 Or. 288, 294 ( 97 Pac. 99 ), and approved in De Vall v. De Vall, 57 Or. 128, 138 ( 109 Pac. 755 , 110 Pac. 705 ).
green
DeVall v. DeVall (1910)
The plaintiff properly set forth, as parts of the complaint, copies of sections of the statute of that state relating to divorce, to alimony, and to the manner of securing jurisdiction of the person in certain instances, for a court will not take judicial notice of the statutes of another state, thereby making averment and proof thereof requisite: Goodwin v. Morris, 9 Or. 322, 324 ; Cressey v. Tatom, 9 Or. 541, 545 ; Scott v. Ford, 52 Or. 288, 294 ( 97 Pac. 99 ) ; Young v. Y…
See, e.g., Scott v. Ford, 52 Or. 288 , 97 P. 99 (1908). [6] Thus, for purposes of this appeal, there is no need to consider the legal sufficiency of the allegations in plaintiffs' second count. [7] In Holmes , the Court opined, "the very unlikelihood that Congress meant to allow all factually injured plaintiffs to recover persuades this Court that RICO should not get such an expansive reading." 503 U.S. at 266 , 112 S.Ct. 1311 . [8] According to plaintiffs' complaints, they …
green
Thunderbird Motel, Inc. v. City of Portland (1979)
See Scott *702 v. Ford, 52 Or 288 , 97 P 99 (1908).