Case law

Crown Cycle Co. v. Brown

39 Or. 285 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1901

There are many of great weight holding that he can : Galvin v. Mac Mill. Co. 14 Mont. 508 ( 37 Pac. 366 ); Lehmann v. Schmidt, 87 Cal. 15 ( 25 Pac. 161 ); Roberts v. Evans, 43 Cal. 380 ; Norden v. … Co. v. Towle, 65 Wis. 247 ( 26 N. W. 104 ); Downs v. Finnegan, 58 Minn. 112 ( 49 Am. St. Rep. 488 , 59 N. W. 981 ); Gordan v. Bruner, 49 Mo. 570 ; McCombs v. Church, 9 Lea, 81 ; Terry v. Munger, 121 N. Y. 161 ( 18 Am.

Brown v. Thompson

332 Or. 57 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 4, 2001

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or 180 , 998 P2d 661 (2000).

Brown v. City of Grants Pass

363 Or. 390 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2018

Brown v. Deschuttes Bridge Co.

23 Or. 7 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1885

Brown v. Morrow

331 Or. 597 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2001

The’ case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or 180 , 998 P2d 661 (2000).

Marion Automobile Co. v. Brown

127 Or. 551 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1928

Wheeler, 40 Or. 198 ( 66 Pac. 812 ); Clarke v. Philomath College, 99 Or. 366 ( 193 Pac. 470 , 195 Pac. 822 ); Weaver v. Owens, 16 Or. 301 ( 18 Pac. 579 ), Hesse v. Barrett, 41 Or. 202 ( 68 Pac. 751 ); 27 C. … Such transactions are closely scrutinized by the courts when their bona fides are challenged by the grantor’s creditors: Coffey v. Scott, 66 Or. 465 ( 135 Pac. 88 ); Livesley v.

Brown v. SAIF

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2017

Throughout this opinion we use “combined condition” as the same shorthand phrase for both. 244 Brown v. SAIF court and this one. Brown v. … See, e.g., Luckhurst v. Bank of 256 Brown v.

Wm. Brown & Co. v. Duda

91 Or. 402 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1919

The right to prove such a fact by parol testimony is sustained by the opinion of this court in Barbre v. Goodale, 28 Or. 465 ( 38 Pac. 67 , 43 Pac. 378 ).

Laurance v. Brown

94 Or. 387 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1919

Dec. 140 ); Hough v. Porter, 51 Or. 318, 421 ( 95 Pac. 732 , 98 Pac. 1083 , 102 Pac. 728 ). … Laws of Oregon 1913, p. 531; Hill v. American Land & Livestock Co., 82 Or. 202, 209 ( 161 Pac. 403 ).

Brown v. Almasie

91 Or. 668 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1919

Heath v. … Brown and Hunziker for their joint benefit.”

Brown v. Farmers' Supply Co.

23 Or. 541 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1893

It is essential to the proper execution of a deed or mortgage by a corporation, that it be done in the name of and on behalf of the corporation, and under its corporate seal: Devlin, Deeds, § 334; Eagle Woolen Mills Co. v. … Helens Mill Co. 3 Saw. 88 ; Brinley v. Mann,, 2 Cush. 337 . The mortgage in this case is not executed, nor does it purport to be executed, by or in behalf of the Farmers’ Supply Depot Company. It is executed by F. S.

Brown v. Hillpot

202 Or. 393 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1954

That such a decree may not be so attacked is settled in the case of Shaveland v. Shaveland, 112 Or 173 , 228 P 1090 . Affirmed. Neither party to recover costs or disbursements.

Smith v. Brown

237 Or. 23 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1964

. *28 In Mooney v. Holcomb, 15 Or 639 , Mr.

Brown v. Jessup

19 Or. 288 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 19, 1890

Dore v. … The objection to the affidavit does not fall within Stark v. Stafford, 14 Or. 317 .

Berliner v. Brown, Doria & Hill

221 Or. 475 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1960

In October, 1955, plaintiff obtained judgment against the corporation and Brown and Doria. … Attention is also directed to the entire opinion of this court in Leonard v. King, 128 Or 216 , 274 P 116 . Affirmed.

Brown v. Zimbrick Logging, Inc.

273 Or. 463 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1975

Sterrett v. Hurlburt et al, 129 Or 520, 522 , 275 P2d 689 (1929). … “It is sufficient, if from proximate estimates of witnesses, a satisfactory conclusion can be reached * * Brown v. McCloud, 96 Or 549, 552 , 190 P 578 (1920). Accord, Buck v.

Brown v. City of Salem

251 Or. 150 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1968

In Bennet v. … Withnell v.

Brown v. Adult & Family Services

293 Or. 395 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1982

Following our decision in Brown v. … It was from that decision we allowed review and consolidated the case for argument and decision with other cases in Brown v. Adult and Family Services, supra.

Callander and Stone v. Brown

181 Or. 279 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1947

Hamilton v. Finch, 166 Or. 156, 172 , 109 P. (2d) 852 , 111 P. (2d) 81 . Anderson v. … See Lawry v. McKennie, 177 Or. 604, 164 P. (2d) 444 ; LaVigne v. LaVigne, 176 Or. 634 , 158 P. (2d) 557 ; Ross v. Hayes, 176 Or. 225 , 157 P. (2d) *287 517, 158 A. L. R. 452; Rauch v. Stecklein, supra.

Brown v. City of Portland

120 Or. 76 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1926

L.) provides that the writ shall be concurrent with the right of appeal, it was not the intention of the legislature that it be substituted for an appeal: Garnsey v. … County Court, 33 Or. 201 ( 54 Pac. 539, 1089 ); McAnish v. Grant, 44 Or. 57 ( 74 Pac. 396 ); Farrow v. Nevin, 44 Or. 496 (75 Pac. 711); McCabe-Duprey Tanning Co. v. Eubanks, 57 Or. 44 ( 102 Pac. 795 , 110 Pac. 395 ).