Case law

Willamette Freighting Co. v. Stannus

4 Or. 261 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1872

The doctrine that whenever a corporation is so organized as to be capacitated to prosecute its business, it has, through its Board of Directors, the power to levy assessments (S. & S. P. R. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. … Co. v. Rice, 7 Barb. 164 ; S. & S. P. R. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 107 .) It appears that two assessments, aggregating thirty-five per cent., were levied by the stockholders by virtue of Article 10 of the by-laws.

Day v. Northwest Division 1055

238 Or. 624 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1964

Our study of these and other cases and authority have caused us to conclude that Borden and Perko *626 limit plaintiff’s relief here to the National Labor Relations Board. The earlier case of Machinists v. … Bd. v. Technicolor Motion Pic. Corp., (9th Cir USCA, 1957), 248 F2d 348, and International Union of Electrical, R. & M. Wkrs. v.

Gugler v. Baker County Education Service District

305 Or. 548 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1988

The Tax Court in Dept. of Rev. v. … Gibbons v. Dept. of Rev., 9 OTR 176 (1982) (failure of board of directors even to read applicable Local Budget Law statutes rendered it impossible to apply substantial compliance doctrine).

In Re Beers

339 Or. 215 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2005

See State v. Gallant, 307 Or 152, 157 , 764 P2d 920 (1988) (shoplifting is crime of dishonesty for purposes of impeachment under OEC 609). … Without minimizing the board’s concerns about candor, we are satisfied that applicant disclosed every relevant fact to the board and did not try to hamper the board’s review in any way.

Maxwell v. PORTLAND TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY

253 Or. 573 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1969

In Brown v. … Brown v. Bonesteele was followed in Western Feed Co. v. Heidloff, 230 Or 324, 370 P2d 612 (1962). That was an action to recover the price of pig feed; the defendant counterclaimed for damages for breach of warranty.

Davis v. Payne

108 Or. 72 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1923

BROWN and HARRIS, JJ. We are unable entirely to agree with the opinion written by Mr. Justice Bean or with the one written by Mr. Justice Rand; and therefore we deem it necessary to explain our views. … A. 543 ); and Lmkous v. Virginian Railway Co., 242 Fed. 916 ( 155 C. C. A. 504 ), the writers are led *119 to the conclusion that on the facts thus far assumed to exist the plaintiff cannot recover. In Linkous v.

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.

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.

Herman v. East Side Logging Co.

135 Or. 279 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1931

In Miller et al. v. … J., Rand and Brown, JJ., concur.

Sahnow v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

260 Or. 564 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1971

In arriving at this conclusion, the majority now accepts the reasoning of Denecke, J., in his dissenting opinion in Surratt v. Gunderson Bros., 259 Or 65 , 485 P2d 410 (1971). … Beagle v. Rudie Wilhelm Warehouse Company, 2 Or App 533 , 463 P2d 875 , 470 P2d 386 (1970). The Court of Appeals also had the discretion to remand the case to the hearing officer.

Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County

373 Or. 790 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 3, 2025

Board of Appeals. 325 Or App 282, 529 P3d 1007 (2023). … See Brown v.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Bridges

298 Or. 53 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1984

“V. “On or about September 29, 1982, after having obtained the forms required to request a formal hearing to contest the denial of his claim, Mr. … In accordance with that statute the Trial Board and Disciplinary Review Board *61 act as an arm of the court.

Wiest v. School District No. 24

68 Or. 474 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1914

A. 301, note); Board of Education v. Volk, 72 Ohio St. 469 ( 74 N. E. 646 ). A different conclusion appears to have been arrived at in Bedfield v. School Dist. … As observed in Board of Education v. Volk, 72 Ohio St. 469 ( 74 N.

Huffaker v. Bailey

273 Or. 273 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1975

Sosa v. Board of Managers of Val Verde Memorial Hospital, 437 F2d 173, 176 (5th Cir 1971); Edson v. Griffin Hospital, 21 Conn Sup 55, 144 A2d 341 (1958); North Broward Hospital District v. … Petitioner cites Rosner v.

Astleford v. SAIF Corp.

319 Or. 225 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1994

Astleford v. … With respect to ORS 656.003, this court implicitly concluded in SAIF v.

Dougan Co. v. Klamath County

99 Or. 436 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1920

In Avery v. … In Adams v.

Rosboro Lumber Co. v. Heine

289 Or. 909 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1980

In Russell v. … Hood Stages v. Haley, 253 Or 28, 37-39 , 445 P2d 878 , 453 P2d 435 (1969), and State ex rel Ricco v.

Mendiola v. Graham

139 Or. 592 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1932

J. 888, § 4; McKelvey v. U. S., supra; State v. Horn, 27 Idaho 782 ( 152 P. 275 ). … Buford v. Houtz, supra; Light v. U. S., supra.

Francis v. Schuman

74 Or. 454 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1915

any way binding upon the board or *456 other state officers. … Crowell, 33 Or. 11, 13 ( 52 Pac. 693 ); Moores v. Moores, 36 Or. 261, 264 ( 59 Pac. 327 ); State ex rel. v. Grand Jury, 37 Or. 542, 543 ( 62 Pac. 208 ); Oregon Electric Ry. Co. v.

Johnson v. Dave's Auto Center, Inc.

257 Or. 34 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1970

Conversely, if the Board had denied his claim on the basis that he was not an employee, plaintiff would then have been entitled to file this action against these defendants. Bandy v. … Conder v.