TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Marshall v. Marshall

MARGARET MARSHALL v. FRED MARSHALL

Marshall v. Marshall, 223 P. 738 (Or. 1924)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 11, 1924
Judges
McBride
Citations
223 P. 738110 Or. 5191924 Ore. LEXIS 214
Disposition
Motion to Affirm: Degree Allowed.
Headnotes
Appeal and Error — Decree Affirmed Where Appellant’s Abstract and Brief Fail to Comply With Court Buie. Where appellant’s abstract and brief fail to comply with Supreme Court Bule 10, requiring a specification of the errors, and the brief failed to refer to the pages of the record where the testimony relied upon for a reversal appeared, the decree will be affirmed. See 3 O. J., pp. 1412, 1418; 4 O. J., p. 404.
Summary
From Klamath: A. L. Leavitt, Judge. In Banc.

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

Opinion of the Court — McBride

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

McBRIDE, C. J.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court granting a divorce and the custody of a minor child to Fred Marshall, the defendant and cross-complainant. It now comes up on motion for an order striking out the brief of appellant and affirming the decree for the reason that the appellant has failed to comply with the rules of this court.

There is an entire absence of any attempt to comply with Rule 10 of this court ( 100 Or. 747 ), which requires, either in the abstract or brief, a specification of the errors to be relied upon. The brief also fails to point out, by reference to page or pages of the record, the testimony relied upon by the appellant for reversal of the decree. In fact, the rules of the court have not been complied with in any of these *520 material particulars, either in the abstract or brief. The brief will therefore he stricken out and the decree of the lower court affirmed.

Motion to Affirm; Decree Allowed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1933: 21937: 11941: 21942: 11945: 11954: 11959: 12026: 119332026peak 1933 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Simpson v. Occidental Building & Loan Ass'n19 P.2d 958 (Wyo. 1933)
  2. Currie v. Scott187 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1945)
  3. Hansen v. Oregon Humane Society18 P.2d 1036 (Or. 1933)
  4. Rowe v. ROWE347 P.2d 968 (Or. 1959)
  5. Estate of Matthiessen73 P.2d 1267 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
  6. In re Cloninger's Estate112 P.2d 139 (Wash. 1941)

Most recent

  1. Dept. of Human Services v. V. G.349 Or. App. 452 (2026)
  2. Rowe v. ROWE347 P.2d 968 (Or. 1959)
  3. In re Estate of Nawrocki268 P.2d 363 (Or. 1954)
  4. Currie v. Scott187 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1945)
  5. Ladd & Bush Trust Co. v. Kurtz127 P.2d 732 (Or. 1942)
  6. Howell v. Deady48 F. Supp. 116 (D. Or. 1941)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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