Case law

State v. Deschutes County

88 Or. 661 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 21, 1918

Brown already mentioned. 1. … It is unnecessary to consider the validity of the act of February 1,1917, or the effect of the decree in McKay v. Brown. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Aitibmed.

SAIF v. Ward

369 Or. 384 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 24, 2022

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Workers’ Compensation Board. SAIF v. Ward, 307 Or App 337, 347, 477 P3d 429 (2020). … As we explained in South Beach Marina, Inc. v.

Rohde v. State Industrial Accident Commission

108 Or. 426 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1923

According to People v. Brown, 67 Ill. 435 , quoted with approval in Philadelphia Mortgage & Trust Co. v. Omaha, 63 Neb. 280 ( 88 N. W. 523 , 93 Am. St. … See also Tyler v. Bailey, 71 Ill. 34 ; People v. Seward Highway Commrs., 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 94; Searcy v. Yarnell, 47 Ark. 269 ( 1 S. W. 319 ); Chicago v. Sexton, 115 Ill. 230 ( 2 N. E. 263 ); Rissing v. Ft.

Matthews v. OR. STATE BD. OF HIGHER EDUC.

332 Or. 31 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2001

22 P.3d 754 (2001) 332 Or. 31 Kevin Michael MATTHEWS, Plaintiff, v. … Matthews v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education, 220 F.3d 1165 , 1167 (9th Cir.2000).

In re North Powder River

75 Or. 83 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1914

And in Hough v. … Whited v. Cavin, 55 Or. 98 ( 105 Pac. 396 ), Williams v.

Domogalla v. Department of Revenue

283 Or. 377 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1978

Mittleman v. Commission, 2 OTR 105 (1965). A taxpayer who disagrees with the value determined by the assessor must petition the Board of Equalization for review. ORS 309.100. … Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR 454 (1976); Co-Operative Security Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR 419 (1976); State Finance Co. etal v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 651 (1974); T & R Service v. Commission, 3 OTR 271 (1968); Mittleman v.

Washer v. Clatsop Care & Rehabilitation District

304 Or. 3 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1987

See Forrester v. City of Hillsboro, 156 Or 89 , 66 P2d 496 (1937) (charter required corporation to contract only pursuant to written ordinance or resolution of the governing board); White v. … In addition to cases cited supra, see Barbour & Son v.

Columbia River Television v. Multnomah County

299 Or. 325 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1985

The Court of Appeals affirmed LUBA’s decision (Columbia River Television v. … See Jefferson Landfill Comm. v. Marion Co., 297 Or 280, 284-85 , 686 P2d 310 (1984); Benton County v. Friends of Benton County, 294 Or 79, 89 , 653 P2d 1249 (1982).

Elvin v. Oregon Public Employes Union

313 Or. 165 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 1992

Detroit Board of Education, supra, 431 US at 222 . See Ellis v. … Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, supra, 431 US at 234 .

Rose v. Wollenberg

39 L.R.A. 378 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1896

Ct. 58); Reed v. Holcomb, 31 Conn. 360 ; Potter v. Brown, 35 Mich. 274 ; Hilliard v. White (Tex. Civ. App.), 31 *281 S. W. 553 ; Emerson v. Slater, 63 U. S. (22 How.), 43. … Ward, 5 Or. 453 ; Brown v. Oregon Lumber Company, 24 Or. 317 ( 33 Pac. 557 ); Vanbebber v. Plunkett, 26 Or. 562 (27 L. R. A. 811, 38 Pac. 708 ); Baldwin v. Fleming, 90 Ind. 177 .

Vaughn v. School District Thirty-One

27 Or. 57 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1895

Battelle, 11 Mass. 477 ; Hartwell v. Littleton, 13 Pick. 229 ; Chamberlain v. Hover, 13 Me. 466 ( 29 Am. Dec. 517 ). The pleadings, show that the defendant J. J. … The intent to levy the ten-mill tax, and have it collected, is apparent from the record, and where such intent is manifest it is equivalent to a present levy: West v. Whitaker, 37 Iowa, 598 ; Snell v.

Rash v. McKinstry Co.

331 Or. 665 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 2001

Rash v. McKinstry Co., 160 Or App 131, 137 , 981 P2d 343 (1999). We review for errors of law. … In determining the meaning of that statute, we employ the now-familiar methodology outlined in PGE v.

State v. Des Chutes Land Co.

64 Or. 167 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1913

Bunch v. Tipton, 76 Ark. 167 ( 88 S. W. 888 ); Cahill v. Board, 127 Mich. 487 ( 86 N. W. 950 : 55 L. R. A. 493); Carolina Natl. Bank v. State, 60 S. C. 465 ( 38 S. E. 629 : 85 Am. St. Rep. 865 ); State v. Chilton, 49 W. … E. 612 ); Hord v. State, 167 Ind. 622 ( 79 N. E. 916 ); Jobe v. Urquhart (Ark.) 143 S. W. 121 ; Louisville & N. R. R. v. Railroad Com’rs (Fla.) 58 South. 543 ; Allin v. County Board, 148 Ky. 746 ( 147 S. W. 920 ).

Wilson v. State Farm Insurance

326 Or. 413 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1998

In Redman Industries, Inc. v. … See ORS 656.012(2)(a) (so stating); see also Andrews v. Tektronix, Inc., 323 Or 154, 159-60 , 915 P2d 972 (same); Clark v. U.S.

Bedell v. Schiedler

307 Or. 562 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1989

Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, supra, 283 Or at 28 . … See Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, supra, 283 Or at 27, n 7 .

Madden v. Columbia & Nehalem River Railroad

101 Or. 562 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1921

Justice Brown in Galveston etc. Ry. Co. v. Powers, 101 Tex. 161, 164 ( 105 S. … J., and Johns and Brown, JJ., concur.

City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489

292 Or. 266 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1981

See, e.g., Town of Arlington v. Board of Concil. & Arbit., 370 Mass. 769 , 352 N.E.2d 914, 920-921 (1976); City of Amsterdam v. … (Emphasis added) [9] Note 15 of "the original opinion" is as follows: " E.G., Brown v. City of Salem, 251 Or. 150 , 444 P.2d 936 (1968); Bennet v.

Portland v. Traynor

94 Or. 418 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1919

To do this plenary power is vested under the city charter and the execution of that power is vested in the board of health. In Lieberman v. Van De Car, 199 U. S. 552 ( 50 L. Ed. 305 , 26 Sup. Ct. … In State v.

State ex rel. Reed v. Smith

15 Or. 98 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1887

(Allen v. Hill, 16 Cal. 119 .) … The same view is expressed in Seeligson & Co. v. Brown, 61 Tex. 114 , and in Angelí & Ames on Corporations, section 357.

Hicks v. Schrunk

238 Or. 181 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1964

As required by the Charter the Board accepted the physicians’ findings and denied the application. The facts in the instant case are quite similar to those in Mundt v. Peterson et al, 1957, 211 Or 293 , 315 P2d 589 . … The case is governed by Mundt v. Peterson, et al, supra, and by Miller v. Schrunk et al, 1962, 232 Or 383 , 375 P2d 823 , and Baker v. Steele et al, 1962, 229 Or 498 , 366 P2d 726 . The judgment must be affirmed.