Bitting v. Douglas County
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Marriage of McDaniel (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
- Stovall v. Publishers Paper Co. (Or. 1978)
- Columbia Auto Works, Inc. v. Yates (Or. 1945)
- Dixie Meadows Independence Mines Co. v. Kight (Or. 1935)
- Saul v. Continental Casualty Co. (Or. 1926)
- Tulloch v. Cockrum (Or. 1925)
- Keane v. City of Portland (Or. 1925)
- Wiley v. Reasoner (Or. 1914)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court:
In the examination of this record we shall only consider the sixth and seventh assignments of error, as we deem them decisive of the case. In proceedings to establish a county road, the petition is the complaint, and the notice is the process which gives the county court jurisdiction : Jones v. Marion County, 4 Or. 46. The advertisement is the process, and the posting in public places is the service: Minard v. Douglas County, 9 Or. 206. In King v. Benton County, 10 Or. 512, Waldo, J., says: “It is common sense that the notice should give full information of the intended proceeding.” In Vedder v. Marion County, 22 Or. 264 (29 Pac. 619), the strictness of the rule adopted in the cases of Minard v. Douglas County, and King v. Benton County, is somewhat modified, but it was never intended to dispense with any of those requirements
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.