Parman v. Parman

180 P. 906, 94 Or. 307
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided May 20, 1919·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

1. In De Foe v. De Foe, 88 Or. 549 (169 Pac. 128, 172 Pac. 980), this court, speaking of the appearance of a district attorney without service of summons, or filing any pleading, said:

“While such appearance of the district attorney confers jurisdiction, it does not in the absence of some motion or other pleading filed by him, confer upon the state any right of appeal, or any right to be heard further in the case,” etc.

We still adhere to this statement of the law, and the motion to dismiss will be overruled.

Overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Parman v. Parman, 180 P. 906, 94 Or. 307 (Or. 1919).

180 P. 906 (Parman v. Parman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Oliver v. Oliver
337 P.2d 318 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)
Hiltbrand v. Hiltbrand
193 P.2d 391 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1948)
Keeley v. Keeley
192 P. 490 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1920)