Stringham v. Union County People's Utility District

187 P.2d 150, 178 P.2d 698, 182 Or. 565
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 3, 1948
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 187 P.2d 150 (Stringham v. Union County People's Utility District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stringham v. Union County People's Utility District, 187 P.2d 150, 178 P.2d 698, 182 Or. 565 (Or. 1948).

Opinions

ROSSMAN, C. J.

These three causes are before us upon motions filed by the respondents in each of the causes to strike from our files the abstracts of record submitted in the three causes on the ground that matter has been inserted in each of the abstracts which is not a part of the circuit court’s records. The respondents move in the alternative that there be deleted from each of the abstracts *567 of record the improper material. The latter is the same in each of the three abstracts and consists of correspondence.

Rule 9 of this court (9 O. C. L. A. 320) says:
it# # # The appellant shall serve upon the attorney for each respondent a printed abstract, prepared as hereinafter provided, containing a copy of so much of the matters of record * * * as may be necessary to a full understanding of the questions presented for decision * * V’

It will be observed that the contents of the abstract of record must consist of “matters of record.” The motions made by the respondents must, therefore, be allowed. The appellants shall within twenty days file new abstracts or, in the alternative, delete from the present ones the improper matter. Should the respondents wish to file supplemental abstracts they may have twenty days after the appellants have complied with the order which will be entered pursuant to this opinion.

*568 Gus J. Solomon, of Portland, and Charles R. Cater, of La Grande (Raymond M. Kell, of Portland, on brief), for appellants. Harold Banta, of Baker (Hallock, Donald, Banta & Silvan, of Baker, and Dixon & Burleigh, of La Grande, on brief), for respondents.

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

Related

Friends of Morningside Hill v. City of Salem
973 P.2d 367 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1999)
Oregon School Activities Ass'n v. Stout
692 P.2d 633 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1984)
Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Ass'n v. State
645 P.2d 1163 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1982)
Haines v. Board of County Commissioners
180 N.E.2d 23 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1960)
Stanley v. Mueller
315 P.2d 125 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1957)
Snowden v. Kittitas County School District No. 401
231 P.2d 621 (Washington Supreme Court, 1951)
Redick v. Peony Park
37 N.W.2d 801 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1949)
Gurdane v. Northern Wasco County Peoples' Utility District
195 P.2d 171 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1948)
Stringham v. Union County People's Utility District
187 P.2d 150 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 P.2d 150, 178 P.2d 698, 182 Or. 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stringham-v-union-county-peoples-utility-district-or-1948.