TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Horn

State v. Horn, 65 P. 1066 (Or. 1901)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 5, 1901
Citations
65 P. 106639 Or. 152
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Affirming for Failure to File Brief. Where appellant has failed to comply with the rules of court regulating the serving and filing of briefs, and no excuse is oflfered for the omission, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed on motion.
Summary
Appeal from Malheur Circuit Court. Action by the state against Riley M. Horn and others. Judgment for the state, and defendants appeal. Motion to affirm the judgment for appellants’ failure to serve and file a brief.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

This is a motion to affirm a judgment. The transcript was filed at Pendleton on April 11, 1901, and on the tenth of May, in pursuance of the stipulation of the parties, the cause was transferred to Salem for argument. No brief has been filed by the appellants, however, and for this reason the attorney-general moves to affirm the judgment. No excuse is offered for the failure to file the brief, except that the rules of the court on that subject do not apply to cases for hearing at Pendleton. But Rule 32, which was framed by and adopted at the suggestion of a committee of the Eastern Oregon bar, provides that in such cases the appellant must serve a brief within thirty days after his appeal is perfected, and file the same in the appellate court at least ten days before the first of the term : 35 Or. 608 . And as this rule has not been complied with, and no excuse presented for the delay, the judgment will be affirmed, on the authority of Blank v. Walker, 33 Or. 372 ( 53 Pac. 1133 ); Reynolds v. Jackson County, 33 Or. 422 ( 53 Pac. 1072 ); State v. Rowe, 36 Or. 79 ( 60 Pac. 203 ). Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1910: 11911: 119102026peak 1910 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Commercial National Bank v. Temple109 P. 129 (Or. 1910)
  2. Cole v. Willow River Co.117 P. 659 (Or. 1911)

Most recent

  1. Cole v. Willow River Co.117 P. 659 (Or. 1911)
  2. Commercial National Bank v. Temple109 P. 129 (Or. 1910)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Reynolds v. Jackson Cnty., 53 P. 1072 (Or. 1898) 12
Blank v. Walker, 53 P. 1133 (Or. 1898) 1
State v. Rowe, 60 P. 203 (Or. 1900) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list