Tenny v. Mulvaney

How courts have described this case

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

• mere fact that witness was not called was not sufficient to support inference that witness's testimony would have been unfavorable to defendants
• mere fact that witness was not called was not sufficient to support inference that witness’s testimony would have been unfavorable to defendants
• “Th[e] rule is * * * that counsel must confine themselves to facts in evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Hatcher
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1896-04-13· cited 39×
• Huber v. Miller
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1902-03-31· cited 35×
• Cler v. Providence Health System-Oregon
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2010-12-30· cited 33×
• Marshall v. Olson
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1922-01-03· cited 33×
• State v. Drake
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1884-10-15· cited 31×
• State v. Parker
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1963-09-05· cited 23×
• State v. Moore
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1897-04-19· cited 19×
• Tenny & McKenzie v. Mulvaney & Bemis
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1881-10-15· cited 11×
• Hughes v. Heppner Lumber Co.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1955-04-29· cited 9×
• State v. Burton
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2025-06-24· cited 4×

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Ferguson v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1874-11-15· cited 27×
• Dickerson v. Burke
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1858-03-15· cited 8×

Other cases named Tenny v. Mulvaney

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Tenny v. Mulvaney
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1879-07-15· cited 9×