Case law

Atkinson v. Fairview Dairy Farms

190 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1950

This question of joint supervision and control of the premises under' the act being considered has been before the court in only three cases, i.e., Inwall v. Transpacific Lumber Co., supra, Brown v. … Plaintiff attempts to distinguish the case of Brown v. Underwood Lumber Co., supra, from the case at *11 bar.

Bundy v. NuStar GP, LLC

Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2017

Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241, 254, 391 P3d 773 (2017). … See Brown, 361 Or at 249 (describ- ing essential principle).

Bundy v. NuStar GP, LLC

Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2017

Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241, 254, 391 P3d 773 (2017). … See Brown, 361 Or at 249 (describ- ing essential principle).

Thompson v. THOMPSON

233 Or. 262 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1963

Thus in McFadden v. … The purchase of Gladys Thompson’s interest by Brown and Burt was made only after she was carefully advised not only by Brown and Burt but by other counsel at their suggestion.

Pierce v. Douglas School District No. 4

297 Or. 363 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1984

Armistead v. … Armistead v. State Personnel Bd., supra n 4; Am. Fed. of Tchrs., Etc. v. Bd of Ed, Etc., 107 Cal App 3d 829, 840, 166 Cal Rptr 89, 95-96 (1980). 6 ORS 342.545(2) uses the expression “mutual agreement.”

Richter v. Derby

135 Or. 400 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1931

This is only a court of review: State v. Jennings, 131 Or. 455 ( 282 P. 560 ); State v. Hay, 132 Or. 223 ( 285 P. 753 ). … J., Belt and Brown, JJ., concur.

State v. Briggs

45 Or. 366 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1904

: Barmore v. … State Board of Medical Examiners, 21 Or. 301 ( 28 Pac. 8 ); People ex rel. v. Dental Examiners, 110 Ill. 180 .

Bingham v. Lipman

40 Or. 363 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1901

Rep. 364 ); Kelley v. Highfield, 15 Or. 277 ( 14 Pac. 744 ); Day v. Holland, 15 Or. 464 ( 15 Pac. 855 ); Osmun v. Winters, 30 Or. 177 ( 46 Pac. 780 ). And as said by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in Brown v. … however, that the rule should not be applied in an action against a corporation for an injury caused by the misconduct of its agents or servants, unless the act was previously authorized or subsequently ratified by the board

State v. Pomeroy

30 Or. 16 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1896

The boards which he carried out he explained were taken in and used by him in getting the rafters in place. … As supporting this rule see McMinn v. Whelan, 27 Cal. 300 ; Rice v. State, 3 Tex. App. 451; People v. Christensen, 24 Pac. 888 ; State v. Brown, 76 N. C. 222 .

Oregon Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. Peterson

244 Or. 116 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1966

To like effect, see American Can Co. v. … Angelos v. Board of Dental Examiners, 244 Or 1 , 414 P2d 335 (1966).

Hughes, Trustee v. Honeyman

186 Or. 616 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 24, 1949

The Home v. Selling, 91 Or. 428, 438 , 179 P. 261 , 21 A. L. R. 403; Brown v. Drake, 103 Or. 607, 609 , 205 P. 1002 . See 34 C. J. S., Executors and Administrators, section 396 and note 70; 24 C. … The idea is put forward that the court’s comment in Brown v.

Short v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

305 Or. 541 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1988

Like its companion cases of Greenslitt v. City of Lake Oswego, 305 Or 530 , 754 P2d 570 (1988), and Guill v. … Ohlig v.

Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer School District

341 Or. 401 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 28, 2006

Norden v. Water Resources Dept., 329 Or 641, 645 , 996 P2d 958 (2000). As part of that first level of analysis, this court considers its prior interpretations of the statute. State v. … See, e.g., State v. Reid, 319 Or 65, 68-69 , 872 P2d 416 (1994) (citing and relying upon pre-PGE case law); State ex rel Huddleston v. Sawyer, 324 Or 597, 608 , 932 P2d 1145 (1997) (same).

State v. Hart

309 Or. 646 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1990

In State v. … Brown, 297 Or 404, 445 , 687 P2d 751 (1984), that polygraph evidence is not admissible, over proper objection, in any civil or criminal trial in this state. In State v.

Dayton v. Multnomah County

34 Or. 239 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1898

This is practically the holding in Smith v. Kelly, 24 Or. 464 ( 33 Pac. 642 ). … And the court is not without precedent for its decision in Dayton v. Board of Equalization. See Orr v. State Board of Equalization, 2 Idaho, 923 ( 28 Pac. 416 ).

Gettman v. State Accident Insurance Fund

289 Or. 609 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1980

Weller v. Union Carbide, 288 Or 27 , 602 P2d 259 (1979); Sahnow v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 260 Or 564 , 491 P2d 997 (1971). … The circumstances suggest to us, however, that the Court of Appeals may have affirmed the Board as the result of an erroneous interpretation of the law. In Bowman v.

Wiggins Co. v. McMinnville Motor Car Co.

111 Or. 123 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1924

A case similar in principle is that of Wood v. Lester, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 145. See, also, Tedford v. Wilson, 3 Head (Tenn.), 311; Pope v. Foster, 7 Baxt. (Tenn.) 98 . … Bean, Brown and MoCourt, JJ., concur.

Shoulders v. SAIF Corp.

300 Or. 606 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1986

SAIF cites Forney v. … In Korter v.

Sheldon v. U.S. Bank (In re Comp. of Sheldon)

364 Or. 831 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 23, 2019

The Court of Appeals held that the board applied the wrong standard, vacated the board's decision, and remanded the case to the board to apply the standard in the manner directed by that court. Sheldon v. … See, e.g. , Hamilton v. SAIF , 256 Or.

Washington County Police Officers Ass'n v. Washington County

321 Or. 430 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1995

The order of the Employment Relations Board is affirmed. … ERB held: “In short, [the] manual provisions that the Association challenges are consistent with the directives that this Board has issued in [Washington County Police Officers Association v.