Case law

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.

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.

State Ex Rel. Teegarden v. Union High School District No. 1

152 Or. 412 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1936

It is noted that the above section even authorizes the district boundary board to designate the time of special elections for such purpose. As stated in State ex rel. v. … , as was the case in Riggs v.

Bogard v. Barhan

52 Or. 121 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1908

Ed. 447 ) ; Halsell v. Renfrow, 14 Okl. 674 ( 78 Pac. 118 ) ; Eggleston v. Wagner, 46 Mich. 610 ( 10 N. W. 37 ) ; Browne, Stat. Frauds, § 385; Wood, Frauds, § 353. 3. That is certain which can be made certain. … Willamette Co. v. Gordon, 6 Or. 175, 179 ; House v. Jackson, 24 Or. 89 ( 32 Pac. 1027 ) ; Hayden v. Brown, 33 Or. 221 ( 53 Pac. 490 ) ; Smiley v. Fries, 104 Ill. 416 . 4.

Greenwood v. Gladden

231 Or. 396 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1962

Petitioner contends, however, that the statute is in direct conflict with the holding in Anderson v. … The legislature can constitutionally delegate to the parole board the authority to decide whether the conditions of the parole are fulfilled. Cf., Rightnour v. Gladden, 219 Or 342 , 347 P2d 103 (1959).

Morgan v. Stimson Lumber Co.

289 Or. 93 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 6, 1980

The Cotut of Appeals reversed, holding that the Workers’ Compensation Law "does not give the Board the authority to assess penalties for failure to provide claimant with requested documents.” Morgan v. … We reversed the Cotut of Appeals, Morgan v. Stimson Lumber Company, 288 Or 595 , 607 P2d 150 (1980). Our mandate took the form of a simple reversal of the Court of Appeals, thus affirming the order of the Board.

Ayers v. Lincoln County School District

248 Or. 31 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1967

School Dist. 7 v. Weissenfluh, 236 Or 165 , 387 P2d 567 (1963); Mohr v. State Board of Education, 236 Or 398 , 388 P2d 463 (1964). … Mohr v. State Board of Education, supra. Defendant contends that the panel proceedings are *36 “investigatory” only, and because of that plaintiff may not complain over her exclusion.

Huggett v. Kelly

370 Or. 645 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2022

Petitioner appealed and her appeal was certified to the Supreme Court under ORS 19.405, along with two other similar cases, Watkins v. Ackley, (A176245)(S068825), and Jones v. Brown, (A175780)(S068824). … Held: (1) Under the Court’s analysis and decision in Watkins v.

State Ex Rel. Nilsen v. Adams

248 Or. 269 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1967

State v. Walker, 244 Or 404, 412, 413 , 417 P2d 1004 (1966); NW Ice and, Cold Stor. v. Multnomah Co., 228 Or 507, 512 , 365 P2d 876 (1961); Larson v. Heintz Const. … In McGinnis et al v.

In Re Estate of MacMullen

117 Or. 505 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1926

C. 317; Nave v. Salmon, 51 Ind. 159 ; Knight v. Hamakar, 40 Or. 424, 431 ( 67 Pac. 107 ); In re Ross’ Estate, 179 Cal. 358 ( 182 Pac. 303 ); In re Snowball Estate, 156 Cal. 235 ( 104 Pac. 446 ). … A similar holding was announced in Ford v. Gilbert, 44 Or. 259, 262 ( 75 Pac. 138 ).

Oregon Home Builders v. Crowley

87 Or. 517 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1918

*525 Warlters: Browne on St. of Fr. (5 ed.), §§ 391, 393; 20 Cyc. 262. … Co. v. Schnell, 20 Minn. 40, 45 ; 20 Cyc. 266; 3 Jones on Ev., § 430, p. 130; Browne on Statute of Frauds (5 ed.), § 399.

State v. Linn County

25 Or. 503 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1894

Co. v. Croisan, 22 Or. 393 , 30 Pac. 219 ; Smith v. … The decision in State v. Shaw, 22 Or. 287 , 29 Pac. 1028 , settles this question against the defendant.

Stark v. McKenna

124 Or. 332 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1928

He cannot accept the benefits of the transaction and repudiate the parts thereof disadvantageous to him: Dillard v. Olalla, 52 Or. 126 ( 94 Pac. 966 , 96 Pac. 678 ); Rae v. … J., and McBride and Brown, JJ., concur.'

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Langley

217 Or. 45 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1959

See State v. Langley, 214 Or 445 , 323 P2d 301 . … He thought that, since, as disclosed by our opinion in State v.

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Katzenbach

307 Or. 391 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1989

kind condemned by this Court in Bauman v. … The Board erred in deciding this case under the Guerrero doctrine instead of addressing the merits of the claimant’s appeal under Bauman v. SAIF, supra; Johnson v.

Baker v. Cameron

240 Or. 354 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 1965

Com. v. Bates, 217 Or 121 , 341 P2d 119 (1959); see, also, Unemp. Compensation Com. v. Brown, 225 Or 306 , 358 P2d 502 (1960). … Board of Review of Industrial Com’n, 123 Utah 423 , 260 P2d 744 (1953), as persuasive decisions from other jurisdictions. However, the facts in these case are also materially different.

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.

Barrow v. School Dist. No. 8

83 Or. 272 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1917

In Stackpole v. … It was approved there so far as it relates to a claim upon a contract: See, also: Philomath v. Ingle, 41 Or. 289 ( 68 Pac. 803 ); Richardson v. City of Salem, 51 Or. 125 ( 94 Pac. 34 ).

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Chambers

292 Or. 670 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1982

We agree with the Trial Board, although maybe for a different reason. The Trial Board did not expand upon the reason for its finding. … State of Oregon v.

Doherty v. Harris Pine Mills, Inc.

211 Or. 378 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1957

“Tract 1. 12 — 40’s (described) — 434,000 board feet of pine “Tract 2. 6 — 40’s (described) — 1,015,000 board feet of pine “Tract 3. 12 — 40’s (described) — 1,505,000 board feet of pine “Tract!. … of 800,000 board feet.