Pearson v. Schmitt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “The view as now taken by a majority of the states is that where a money award has been modified on appeal . . . then the interest on the award, as modified, should run from the date of original judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1999-10-07· cited 31×
• Dursteler v. Dursteler
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 1987-02-26· cited 26×
• Isaacson Structural Steel Co. v. Armco Steel Corp.
  Alaska Supreme Court· 1982-02-11· cited 19×
• Huston v. Trans-Mark Services, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1980-04-14· cited 18×
• Verret v. Leagjeld
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1972-10-09· cited 15×
• Lippert v. Angle
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1974-11-02· cited 10×
• Young v. State of Oregon
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2009-07-16· cited 9×
• SAUSE BROS. OCEAN TOWING CO. v. Gunderson, Inc.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1973-06-01· cited 6×
• Wall v. SEC Co., Inc.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1974-11-29· cited 6×
• Schiff v. Winchell
  Nevada Supreme Court· 2010-08-12· cited 5×
• Young v. State
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2008-07-09· cited 3×
• Averill v. Red Lion
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1993-05-12· cited 1×
• Southern Oregon Production Credit Ass'n v. Geaney
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1984-11-27
• Skinner and Skinner
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2022-12-15

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Gow v. Multnomah Hotel, Inc.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1951-03-07· cited 62×
• Pearson v. Schmitt
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1971-07-15· cited 24×