strange doctrine in Oregon

1987“The Supreme Court said in State v. Palaia, 289 Or 463 , 614 P2d 1120 (1980): “ ‘It is correct that the jury could disregard the uncon-tradicted evidence [of the greater offense], irrational as such a result might be.

1987“The Supreme Court said in State v. Palaia, 289 Or 463 , 614 P2d 1120 (1980): “ ‘It is correct that the jury could disregard the uncon-tradicted evidence [of the greater offense], irrational as such a result might be.

1958As said by the supreme court of California in considering a like problem involving the tort liability of a municipal utility district, “Such a rule does not appeal to our sense of justice nor our reason.” Morrison v. Smith Bros., Inc., 211 Cal 36, 293 P 53 .

1925McLester v. Somerville & McEachin, 54 Ala. 670 ; Maddox et al. v. Dunklin, 163 Ala. 278 ( 50 South. 277 ). 38 Cyc. 2101, and cases cited under note 99, are relied upon by appellant; but an examination of such cases discloses that none of them concern the right of a mortgagee to recover damages for impairment or destruction of his security.

1925McLester v. Somerville & McEachin, 54 Ala. 670 ; Maddox et al. v. Dunklin, 163 Ala. 278 ( 50 South. 277 ). 38 Cyc. 2101, and cases cited under note 99, are relied upon by appellant; but an examination of such cases discloses that none of them concern the right of a mortgagee to recover damages for impairment or destruction of his security.

1925McLester v. Somerville & McEachin, 54 Ala. 670 ; Maddox et al. v. Dunklin, 163 Ala. 278 ( 50 South. 277 ). 38 Cyc. 2101, and cases cited under note 99, are relied upon by appellant; but an examination of such cases discloses that none of them concern the right of a mortgagee to recover damages for impairment or destruction of his security.

1919Answering the contention that this was a suit against the state, the court said: “It would be a strange doctrine, and one fraught with wonderful consequences, if in construing Section 35, of Article VI, of our Constitution, we were obliged to hold that where the state herself sues, and invokes the aid of her courts in maintaining her rights, a humble citizen thus haled into court can never have the errors in decrees in her favor corrected by bill of review or by appellate process.” In Commonwealth v. Helm, 163 Ky. 69 ( 173 S. W. 389 ), the court held: “It may also be confidently affirmed that,

1919Answering the contention that this was a suit against the state, the court said: “It would be a strange doctrine, and one fraught with wonderful consequences, if in construing Section 35, of Article VI, of our Constitution, we were obliged to hold that where the state herself sues, and invokes the aid of her courts in maintaining her rights, a humble citizen thus haled into court can never have the errors in decrees in her favor corrected by bill of review or by appellate process.” In Commonwealth v. Helm, 163 Ky. 69 ( 173 S. W. 389 ), the court held: “It may also be confidently affirmed that,

1919Answering the contention that this was a suit against the state, the court said: “It would be a strange doctrine, and one fraught with wonderful consequences, if in construing Section 35, of Article VI, of our Constitution, we were obliged to hold that where the state herself sues, and invokes the aid of her courts in maintaining her rights, a humble citizen thus haled into court can never have the errors in decrees in her favor corrected by bill of review or by appellate process.” In Commonwealth v. Helm, 163 Ky. 69 ( 173 S. W. 389 ), the court held: “It may also be confidently affirmed that,