# Brief in Opposition to Petition for writ Certiorari — Reynolds Metals Co. v. Martin (No. 691) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386420_0199%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief in Opposition to Petition for writ Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1959 ## Text ° 2 . ; ’ = ‘= : : b« ae ee et @ | otice Somers FILE COPY “5650 et aw OcTOBER Term, 1999 : No. 691 _. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, a corporation, ° Petitioner, Vv. . PAUL MARTIN arid Maa Se husband .! and wife, Respondents. ae _ os, BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO \ ‘PETITION FOR WRIT OF. CERTIORARI GEORGE ‘W. Meso, : IRVING RAND, ~ ‘ 1211 Public Service Building, Portland 4, Oregon,. “ Attorneys for Respondents. . - STEVENS-NESS LAW PLB CO, PORTLAND. ORE 4. rr ¥ . "2° * SUBJECT INDEX on The Facts: Statute of Limitations Federal Question - Conclusion ‘J a at TABLE OF CASES aie ee Page Bedell v. Goulter, 199 Or. 344, 261 P. 2d.842,. 4 Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill 281 ~=«C U.S..673 | ‘5 ‘Brown v. Gessler, 191 Or. 503, 230 P.. 2d 541. ‘Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst Gil & Refining \Co., 287 U.S. 358 Hotelling v. Walther, 169 Or. 559, 130 P. 2d 944 . _ Huber v. Portland Gas & Coke Co., 128 Or. 363, 274 P. 509 : | 4 Kesterson v. California Oregon Power Co., 114 oF. +22, 228 P. 1092 4 a Matthews Vv. Chambers Power Co, (81 Or. 251, ia “P54 ee »p Mendenhall v. Water Company, 27-Or. 38, 39 P.399 . 4. Reynolds Metals. Co. v. Yturbide (C.C.A. Ninth. Circuit 1958), 258 F. 2d 321, certiorari. denied, Reynolds Metals Co. v. ¥turbide, 358 san 840, 79 S.. a. 66 2-3 Roots v. “Boring Junction Seema Co., 50 ‘Or. 298, ‘92 P. 811, 94 P. 182 2 4 Shives ve Chamberlain, 168 Or. 676, .126 P. 2d 28 3 | Ure v. United States, 93 Fed. Supp. 779 (reversed on wt other grounds, 225 F. 2d 709) Urie v. Thompson, 48g U.S. 163, 69 S. Ct. 1018 . 2? | . RULES | Rule 23(f) : eecescee ee Rule 24 : Jar tee In the Supreme Court : af the Hnited States OcTOBER TERM, 1959. e No. 691 REYNOLDS METALS. COMPANY, a corporation, ‘Petitioner, Vi. . ‘PAUL MARTIN and VERLA MARTIN, husband — » and wife, we Respondents. a _ ce rCeenes * BRIEF. IN-OPPOSITION TO © 9 ~~, '. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI “~, vs Gee Respondents submit the following, as permitted by Rule 24, in opposition to the granting of the petition for © a writ of certiorari. | THE FACTS This case involves nothing more than an award of damages for injury caused by petitioner's tortious con- duct.. Petitioner [defendant in the trial court; appellant in the Oregon Supreme Court] spilled forth from its ' factory tons of poisonous fluoride ‘compounds, which settled upon the near-by_lands of respondents, poisoned + _ _ ‘quired to be ¢, passed upon by the Oregon Supreme Court. Pe 2 the forage thereon, and prevented use of the land for grazing cattle. - 7 : The trial court awarded /lagenatie damaggs. The Oregon Supreme. Court affirmed. A petition by a for a rehearing was denied. ce Wa STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - Petitioner states, “the ultimate question involved in ' this case is whether the two or the six year statute of limitations is applicable.” (Petition for Writ, p. 17.) The question of whether recovery was limited to re- covery for the damage occasioned within two years ° before the commencement of the action was never raised in the trial court by demurrer, -pleading, motion or otherwise, and was not an issue between the parties re-_ -This quistion -could-have become important only if it. had been made 4n issue in this particular case, but even *” so would have been only a matter of local Jaw. ‘Continuously between. August, 1951 and January, 1956, petitioner, in the operation of its factory, emitted each day some 800 pounds of these poisons, and toxic quantities were deposited upon plaintiffs’ land (Petition LZ. for -Writ, p. 37). Under the circumstance ‘of this con- "tinuous course of tortious conduct, the statute of — ~>, tions (whichever might be applicable) comm ses to run only when the exposure ceases. The Oreg upreme ~~ —__ Court in this case had‘no occasion to consider or discuss. © this rule of law, but it is the settled rule in Oregon. Rey- ° t ’ - , «molds Metals_Co. v. Yturbide (CEA. Ninth Circuit 1958), 258 F. 2d 321, certiorari denied, 358 U.S. 840, 79 S. Ct. 66; Shives v. Chamberlain, 168 Or. 676, ved ie ~P:-2d 28; Hotelling v. Walther, 169 Or 559, 130 P. 24-~~ 944.See also Urie v. Thompson, 337 US. 163, ah 1018. : ot . Sat Pl ae . Pas sf FEDERAL QUESTION i ‘0 Petitioner claims that federal q tions, here soughts . to be reviewed, were raised i , Court in a petition for rehea ing, and, that somehow re- fusal of the Oregon Supréme Court ‘to fehear the case deprives petitioner of the equal. protection of the law. Under Rule 23(f) petitioner must specify the manner in which the federal question sought to be reviewed was raised. Does the ‘petition for rehearing in the Bs To o Gustav.B. “Margraf and W. Tobin Lennon, Rey- nolds Metals Building, Richmond, Virginia, they being Counsel for Petitioner and that being’ their post-office _address; and by delivering copies thereof at the ‘office of King, Miller, Andersori, Nash &,Yerke, and Frederic ° A. Yerke, Jr. in the American-Bank Building, Portland — + Sy. Oregon, they being the Attorneys for Petitioner. Dated at Porttand, Oregon, this: 7 ‘day of Feb- ~ Grorce W. ioe, . bees Counsel for Respondents. bf _ 6 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386420_0199%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.