Reckard v. Ryan

2 Citing cases

  1. SEELEY v. HOUSTON ET AL

    141 P.2d 880 (Utah 1943)   Cited 1 times

    As this is a law case, the findings must be approved if there is sufficient competent evidence to support them, and will not be disturbed unless it is manifest that they are so clearly against the weight of the evidence as to indicate a misconception, or not a due consideration of it. 1, 2 Jensen v. Howell, 75 Utah 64, 282 P. 1034; Harper v. Tri-State Motors, Inc., 90 Utah 212, 58 P.2d 18. This is an action of forcible entry and detainer, and the only question involved is the immediate right to possession. Paxton v. Fisher, 86 Utah 408, 45 P.2d 903; Woodbury v. Bunker, 98 Utah 216, 98 P.2d 948; Bank of America Nat. Trust Savings Ass'n v. McLaughlin Land Livestock Co., 40 Cal.App.2d 620, 105 P.2d 607; California Prod. Inc. v. Mitchell, 52 Cal.App. 312, 198 P. 646; Sunday v. Moore, 135 Wn. 414, 237 P. 1014; Biebel Roofing Co. v. Pritchett, 373 Ill. 214, 25 N.E.2d 800; Reckard v. Ryan, 133 Or. 108, 288 P. 1053. Our statute provides that the occupant of real property is one who within five days preceding such unlawful entry was in the peacable and undisturbed possession of such lands.

  2. PORT OF SIUSLAW v. RAM DEV

    554 P.2d 631 (Or. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 2 times

    ORS 105.145. Indeed, such is the "* * * only judgment possible * * *." Reckard v. Ryan, 133 Or. 108, 112, 288 P. 1053 (1930). In summary, once the plaintiff has proven his FED complaint and overcome any defenses which have been interposed, restitution of the premises to the plaintiff is mandated.