Case law

Teel v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

294 Or. 588 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1983

A Board referee held the claim to be compensable. The employer challenged the referee’s determination before the Board and lost. … That history and purpose was recently examined by this court in Bracke v. Baza’r, 294 Or 483 , 658 P2d 1158 (1983), and we shall not repeat that examination here.

State v. Hawk

105 Or. 319 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1922

Co. v. Barlow, 3 Or. 311 ; Oregon R. & N. Co. v. Eastlack, 54 Or. 196, 202 ( 102 Pac. 1011 , 20 Ann. Cas. 692); Portland-Oregon City R. R. Co. v. Penny, 81 Or. 81, 85 ( 158 Pac. 404 ); South Park Commrs. v. … The board as officials of the state are bound by the act.

Endicott v. Digerness

103 Or. 555 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1922

See Herring-Hall-Marvin Co. v. Smith, 43 Or. 315 ( 72 Pac. 704 , 73 Pac. 340 ); McDaniel v. Chiaramonte, 61 Or. 403, 408 ( 122 Pac. 33 ); Francis v. Bohart, 76 Or. 1, 5 ( 143 Pac. 920 , 147 Pac. 755 , L. R. … The Comstock-Brown-Alm Company, the assignee of the purchasers, recognized that this amount was due by the payment of $191.28.

Southern Oregon Co. v. Coos Co.

30 Or. 250 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1897

Co. v. Am. Press Ass’n, 102 Ala. 475 ( 15 South, 947 , 950); Wood v. Lake, 3 Colo. App. 284 ( 33 Pac. 80 ); Harrison v. Chipp, 25 Ill. 575 ; Chambers v. Lewis, 9 Iowa, 583 ; People v. … Sup. 941; People v. Board of Assessors, 32 N. Y. Sup. 344; Brandon v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 576 .

Steel v. Holladay

10 L.R.A. 670 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1890

. § 383; O’Connor v. Gifford, 6 Dem. R. 71; Stites v. Burch, 5 Paine Ch. 132; Brown v. Brown, 53 Barb. 217 ; Irwin v. Backus, 25 Cal. 214 , 85 Am. Dec. 125 .) And the decision of this court in Adams v.

Van Koten v. State Industrial Accident Commission

110 Or. 574 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1924

This excerpt is cited with approval in Galvin v. Brown & McCabe, 53 Or. 598, 608 ( 101 Pac. 671 ). In Farrin v. State Industrial Acc. Com., 104 Or. 452 *580 ( 205 Pac. 984 ), Mr. … Justice Brown considered the identical question under consideration in the instant case quoted, with approval, the above excerpt from Galvin v. Brown & McCabe, 53 Or. 598 ( 101 Pac. 671 ).

State v. Scharf

288 Or. 451 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1980

Flores, 280 Or 273, 279 , 570 P2d 965 (1977); Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 (1977); State v. Ivory, 278 Or 499, 503 , 564 P2d 1039 *455 (1977); State v. … Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., supra.

State v. Coffey

309 Or. 342 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1990

State v. … This case is a sequel to, as well as a divergence from, State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984), and State v. Lyon, 304 Or 221 , 744 P2d 231 (1987), but is consistent with Snow v.

Evans v. Finley

166 Or. 227 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1941

State Land Board v. Lee, 84 Or. 431, 441 , 165 P. 372 ; Kaiser v. Idleman, 57 Or. 224, 228 , 108 P. 193 , 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 169; Goodwin v. Morris, 9 Or. 322, 324 ; Myer v. Beal, 5 Or. 130 ; Anderson v. … Wheelock, 60 Kan. 747 , 57 P. 956 ; Knights of the Maccabees v. Louise Nitsch, 69 Neb. 372, 375 , 95 N. W. 626 , 5 Ann. Cas. 257; Snider v. Brown, (Tenn.) 48 S. W. 377 . Cf. Gilfallan v. Union Canal Co., 109 U.

Coday v. WILLAMETTE TUG & BARGE COMPANY

250 Or. 39 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 1968

Thus in Olson v. State Ind. Acc. … Our power to review under the previous law may be illustrated by the ease of Olson v. State Ind. Ago. Com., supra.

CHRISTIAN v. La Forge

194 Or. 450 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1952

To the same effect, see State Board of Barber Examiners v. Cloud, 220 Ind 552, 44 NE2d 972 ; Duncan v. City of Des Moines, 222 Iowa 218 , 268 NW 547 ; State v. Greeson et al., 174 Tenn 178, 124 SW2d 253 . … McRae v. Robbins, 151 Fla 109, 9 So2d 284; Board of Barber Examiners of Louisiana v. Parker, 190 La 214, 182 So 485; State v. McMasters, 204 Minn 438, 283 NW 767 ; Herrin et al. v.

State v. Warner Valley Stock Co.

56 Or. 283 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1910

In Pier v. … Kennedy v. Northup, 15 Ill. 148 ; Booth v. Wiley, 102 Ill. 113 ; Bunce v. Gallagher, 5 Blatchf. 481 , Fed. Cas. No. 2133; Hoopes v. Devaughn, 43 W. Va. 447 ( 27 S. E. 251 ); Carney v. Barnes, 56 W. Va. 586 ( 49 S.

Valley & Siletz Railroad v. Laudahl

296 Or. 779 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1984

Walsh, 127 Conn 16, 16 A2d 6 , 9 (1940); Board of Adjustment of City of Fort Worth v. Stovall, 147 Tex 366, 216 SW2d 171, 173 (1949). In Matunuck Beach Hotel, Inc. v. … Zoning Board of Review, 108 RI 349, 275 A2d 646, 648-49 (1971). In Benton County v.

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.

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 .

Buchanan v. Beck

15 Or. 563 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1888

This court, in Bowen v. Emmerson, 3 Or. 452 , held that the use of the general counts in assumpsit was wholly inconsistent with the theory of the Civil Code. … The same principle was maintained in Dickenson v. Lane, 107 Mass. 548 . That was an action to recover back money paid for a horse sold with warranty.

Peterson v. State Compensation Department

257 Or. 369 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1970

The plaintiff then timely filed a reqnest for a review of the hearing officer’s order by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. On his appeal to the Board plaintiff was represented by counsel. … The Court of Appeals relied on our decision in Printz v. State Compensation Department, 253 Or 148 , 453 P2d 655 (1969), but we think that reliance was unwarranted.

Easton v. Hurita

290 Or. 689 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1981

McBride v. Magnuson, 282 Or 433 , 578 P2d 1259 (1978). As held, however, in Brown v. … In Brown v. Multnomah County Dist.

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.

Shively v. Pennoyer

27 Or. 33 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1895

Hobbs, 27 Cal. 483 ; Quinn v. Kenyon, 38 Cal. 499 ; Schiefferly v. Tapie, 68 Cal. 184 ( 8 Pac. 878 ); Stewart v. Altstock, 22 Or. 182 ( 29 Pac. 553 ). 3. … These acts of the board being discretionary, its directions and decisions will not be reviewed by the courts: Corpe v. Brooks, 8 Or. 222 .