Case law

State v. Bowman

373 Or. 213 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2025

Id. at 594 (quoting State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 409, 687 P2d 751 (1984)). 224 State v. … State v. Jesse, 360 Or 584, 596, 385 P3d 1063 (2016) (citing State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 409, 687 P2d 751 (1984)).

State v. Murphy

253 Or. 444 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 28, 1969

In State v. … State v. Cameron, supra; Crowell v. State, 195 Miss 427, 15 S2d 508, 509 (1943). •:'Thé judgment is affirmed.

Richardson v. Klamath S. S. Co.

62 Or. 490 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 6, 1912

One of plaintiff’s citations is Campbell v. Railway Co., 243 Ill. 620 ( 90 N. E. 1106 ). … Nass v. Schultz, 105 Wis. 146 ( 81 N. W. 133 ) ; Rylander v. Laursen, 124 Wis. 2 ( 102 N. W. 341 ) ; Wibel v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 155 Ill. App. 349 ; Bodie v. Charleston & W. Ry. Co., 61 S. C. 468 ( 39 S. E. 715 ). 7.

State v. Lazarides

358 Or. 728 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 3, 2016

Defendant had failed to report as directed by his supervi- sion officer, and, in December 2014, the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the board) had issued a warrant for his arrest. … State v. Robbins, 345 Or 28, 37-38, 188 P3d 262 (2008).

Ramstead v. Bridges

175 Or. 182 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1944

Bahr, 161 Or. 79 , 87 P. (2d) 219 ; Fischer v. Peters, 147 Or. 426 , 34 P. (2d) 305 ; Jenkins v. Jenkins, 66 Or. 12 , 132 P. 542 . As said in 12 R. C. L. 953, Gifts § 28, and quoted with approval in Bliss v. … In re Brown’s Estate, 165 Or. 575 , 108 P. (2d) 775 ; 24 Am. Jur. 757 ; Note 123 A. L. R. 1505.

State v. Dormitzer

123 Or. 165 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1927

As to the sufficiency of such an indictment, see State v. Sweet, 2 Or. 127 ; State v. Reinhart, 26 Or. 466 ( 38 Pac. 822 ); State v. Stearns, 28 Or. 262 ( 42 Pac. 615 ); State v. … Browning, 47 Or. 470 ( 82 Pac. 955 ); State v. Chapin, 74 Or. 346 ( 144 Pac. 1187 ).

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Mettler

305 Or. 12 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1988

In a different context (privileged communications), this court said in Sitton v. … McCormick section 88; Sitton v. Peyree, 117 Or 107 , 241 P 62 , 242 P 1112 (1926); Booher v. Brown, 173 Or 464 , 146 P2d 71 (1944).”

State v. Eppers

138 Or. 340 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1931

But we regard it as a question of fact and not of law, to be submitted to the jury. ’ ’ To like effect, see State v. Pomeroy, 30 Or. 16 ( 46 P. 797 ); State v. Minnick, 54 Or. 86 ( 102 P. 605 ); State v. … In addition to the authorities hereinbefore cited, see State v. Hill, 63 Or. 451, 459 ( 128 P. 444 ); State v.

McLeod v. Scott

21 Or. 94 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1891

Amperse v. Common Council, 59 Mich. 78 , involves the Same question and was decided the same way. In that case the court said: “The duty of this board under the statutes is a simple one. … (Bean v. County Court, 33 Mo. App. 635 ; Seymour v. Ely, 37 Conn. 103 ; State ex rel. v. Ruark, 34 Mo. App. 325 ; McLaughlin v. Comrs. 7 S. C. Rep. 375; People ex rel. v. Jefferds, 2 Hun, 149 ; Brown v.

State v. Porter

312 Or. 112 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1991

The Oregon Supreme Court, on October 12, 1977, issued its opinion in Hugh Duffy Brown v. Multnomah County District Court, 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 [1977]. … For example, Senator Gardner, sponsor of SB 55, stated that the bill was intended to comply with Brown v. Multnomah County Dist.

State v. Amsden

86 Or. 55 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1917

But whatever motive may have prompted the amendment, the decisions rendered in the cases of Multnomah County v. Knott, 6 Or. 279, 280 , and Thompson v. … Brown, Attorney General, for the motion. Mr. W. Lair Thompson, contra. In Banc. Mr. Justice Moore delivered the opinion of the court. 2.

State v. Port of Tillamook

62 Or. 332 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1912

Brown v. Sengstacken, 61 Or. 455 ( 122 Pac. 292 ). 2. We will take up the questions referred to in their inverse order. … Lane County v. Neilon, 44 Or. 14, 21 ( 74 Pac. 212 ). Presumptions of this character are made a part of the substantive law of this State by statutory enactment. In State ex inf. Brown v.

Graef v. Bowles

119 Or. 498 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1926

Brown said to me that I would have .' … It is likewise a principle set forth in Portland v.

State v. Lyons

324 Or. 256 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1996

Brown, 297 Or at 438-39 ; State v. Johanesen, 319 Or 128 , *282 136, 873 P2d 1065 (1994). … Axell, 235 Cal App 3d 836, 1 Cal Rptr 2d 411 (1991), rev den (1992); State v. Brown, 470 NW2d 30 (Iowa 1991); Spencer v. Commonwealth, 240 Va 78, 393 SE2d 609 , cert den 498 US 908 (1990); Caldwell v.

Browning v. Sacrison

267 Or. 645 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1974

Francis Marion Browning is the same person as Franklin M. Browning. . . Robert Stanley Browning is the same person as Robert Stanley Sacrison. … Bean et al v. First Nat’l. Bank et al, 217 Or 340 , 341 P2d 512 (1959); Williamson v. Denison and Groves, 185 Or 249 , 202 P2d 477 (1947); Stein v. U. S. National Bank, 165 Or 518 , 108 P2d 1016 (1941); Stevens v.

State v. Bennett

301 Or. 299 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1986

This case is a textbook application of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution as interpreted in State v. Brown, supra. … As to the state constitution, State v. Brown would uphold the search as constitutionally valid because a magistrate could have authorized the search of the entire vehicle and its contents. United States v.

McCarthy v. Kiernan

118 Or. 55 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1926

Plaintiff in that year also constructed 620 feet of board walk on floats, at an estimated cost of $1,200. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

State v. Knowles

289 Or. 813 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1980

State v. Brown and State v. Hammang, both supra, were concerned with the Oregon Constitution. … In his petition for review, defendant states: *825 "* * * Moreover, also unlike the Hammang case, we are not here concerned with the ban on double jeopardy as expressed in State v Brown.

Jodoin v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., Inc.

125 Or. 634 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1928

BROWN, J. Does the Employers ’ Liability Act apply to this case? This is the first question to be determined. … He thus described the trucks used by the company, one of which he, with his partner, was pulling across the dock when he was injured: “Well, they are a truck about half a foot high when one of these boards is laid on top

Miller v. Arenz

103 Or. 592 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1920

Arenz, was secretary of the corporation; that Theodore Arenz was authorized by a resolution of the board of directors to do everything pertaining to the general business of the corporation, and that he did it; that on July … Affirmed, Harris, Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.