Case law

Corpe v. Brooks

8 Or. 222 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1880

It was held in tbe case of Joseph Pin eti al. v. James Morris, that our late territorial courts could not revise tbe decisions of tbe surveyor general, and in that case Williams, C. … See also tbe case of Board of Supervisors v. The Auditor General, 27 Miss. 165 .

Harper v. Interstate Brewery Co.

168 Or. 26 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1941

The same author quotes with approval from Chief Justice Tindal in the leading case of Boorman v. Brown, 3 Q. B. (Ad. v. E. N. … “Answer: Yes”. ‘ ‘ Question: As president of the board of directors what were your duties ?

Baker v. UNIGARD INSURANCE COMPANY

269 Or. 204 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1974

The distinction suggested in Brown , if valid, does not apply in this case. … Co., 268 F Supp 995 (D So Car 1966); Brown v. Security Fire and Indemnity Co., 244 F Supp 299 (WD Va 1965); Glacier Gen. Assur. Co. v. St. Farm Ins. Co., 150 Mont. 452 , 436 P2d 533 (1968); Sheffield v.

Booth v. Tektronix, Inc.

312 Or. 463 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1991

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s order without opinion. Booth v. Tektronix, 97 Or App 431 , 776 P2d 884 (1989). We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. … See Branscomb v. LCDC, 297 Or 142 , 681 P2d 124 (1984) (court will give deference to agency’s interpretation of its rule adopted pursuant to a policy-delegating statute). The Board is permitted, as it did in Alan W.

Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

288 Or. 51 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1979

In Kehoe v. Ind. … We believe reasonable minds could differ on the issue and, therefore, leave undisturbed the Board’s finding. Compare, Sahnow v. Fireman’s Fund Ins.

School District v. Irwin

34 Or. 431 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1899

W. 424 ); People v. Board of Education, 3 Hun. 177 . … The case of Woodruff v.

Todd v. Bigham

238 Or. 374 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1964

Dist., 173 Cal 660, 161 P 113 ; Miller & Lux Inc. v. Secara, 193 Cal 755, 764, 227 P 171 ; Miller & Lux v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 189 Cal at 262. We think that OES 548.115 affords a similar right. … Dist. v.

Adams v. Corvallis & E. R. Co.

78 Or. 117 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1915

Brown & McCabe, 53 Or. 598 ( 101 Pac. 671 ); Brown v. Oregon Lumber Co., 24 Or. 317 ( 33 Pac. 557 ). … Marshall, 43 Or. 438, 444 ( 73 Pac. 330 ); Galvin v. Brown & McCabe, 53 Or. 598 ( 101 Pac. 671 ).

Livesay v. Dearmond

131 Or. 563 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1929

And from State v. … Co. v. Wisconsin R.

Town of Klamath Falls v. Sachs

35 Or. 325 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 22, 1899

Ct. 441), and City of Brenham v. German-American Bank, 144 U. S. 173 (12 Sup. Ct. 559). In Ashley v. Board of Supervisors, 8 C. C. … Ct.441), and Brenham v. CermanAmerican Bank, 144 U. S. 173 (12 Sup. Ct. 539). To the same purpose is Ashley v. Board of Supervisors, 8 C. C. A. *342 455 , 60 Fed. 55 . So it is in the case at bar.

State Ex Rel. v. School District No. 23

179 Or. 441 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1946

Relator had actual knowledge of all the actions of the district boundary board herein recited. & if? V? … Weatherford v.

Clatsop County v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

96 Or. 2 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1920

In Pacific Wood & Coal Co. v. … With a boarding camp. “Q. What is the necessity of a boarding camp around camps of that kind? “A.

Landers v. Van Aukin

77 Or. 479 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1915

In subdivision 13 it is made the duty of all boards of directors to provide certain conveniences “for each of the schools under their charge,” for which the board may levy a tax without a vote of the taxpayers. … The plaintiffs do not tender anything whatever on this account, and hence under such authorities as Welch v. City of Astoria, 26 Or. 89 ( 37 Pac. 66 ), and Dayton v.

Saylor v. Enterprise Electric Co.

110 Or. 231 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1924

BROWN, J. … Why use a board? “A.

Kirkwood v. Ford

34 Or. 552 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1899

Laws, §§ 2778, 2779 * ; Oregon & Washington Mortgage Savings Bank v. Jordan, 16 Or. 113 ( 17 Pac. 621 ); Oregon & California R. R. Co. v. Lane County, 23 Or. 386 ( 31 Pac. 964 ); Ramp v. … A strict construction should be given said section 2832 (as was intimated in Steel v. Fell, 29 Or. 272, 45 .

In Re Hayes' Estate

161 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1938

R. 498. *16 In Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622 , 29 L. Ed. 257 , 5 S. … The period of his ownership was brief, possibly no longer than five days, but in Brown v. Houston, supra, American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, supra, General Oil Co. v. Crain, supra, Bacon v.

SAIF Corp. v. Dubose

335 Or. 579 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 7, 2003

In Mabon v. … In Norton v.

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Miller

306 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1988

PER CURIAM Claimant’s employer in this case and claimant in Dunn v. … In an opinion in this case, the majority, over a dissent, held that the Board rule exceeded the scope of its rulemaking authority. Weyerhaeuser Company v. Miller, 88 Or App 286 , 745 P2d 429 (1987).

Delaney v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

278 Or. 305 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 10, 1977

In Fouchek v. … In Starr v.

Union Fishermen's Co-op. Packing Co. v. Point Adams Packing Co.

108 Or. 535 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1923

Immediately above this scroll and between the head and foot boards of the “bedstead” is embossed in large gilt capitals the word “Salmon,” and underneath is printed in black capitals, “Every Can Guaranteed.” … Co. v. A. Y. McDonaly & Morrison Mfg.