Case law

Hammer v. OREGON STATE PEN., CORR. DIVISION

276 Or. 651 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1976

As in the companion case, Tupper v. … This issue is controlled by Tupper v.

State v. MacY

320 Or. 408 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1994

We decline to decide this case on the mere possibility that the Board can and will assume that authority and then will exercise it in defendant’s case. See Hay v. … See also Brumnett v.

Sears v. Orchards Water Co.

115 Or. 291 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1924

Rep. 169 ); Stanley v. Luse , 36 Or. 25 ( 58 P. 75 ). … In this contention the appellants are supported by respectable authority: Shelby *Page 296 v. Farmers' Ditch Co. , 10 Idaho 723 ( 80 P. 222 ); Adams v. Twin Falls Co. , 29 Idaho 357 ( 161 P. 322 ); Reynolds v.

Clackamas County Assessor v. Village at Main Street Phase II, LLC

349 Or. 330 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 9, 2010

Reynolds v. … See State v.

Siburg v. Johnson

249 Or. 556 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1968

Brown, 75 Nev 437, 345 P2d 754 (1959); City of Baltimore v. Fire Insurance Salvage Corps, 219 Md 75, 148 A2d 444 , 82 ALR2d 306 (1959); City of Kalamazoo v. Priest, 331 Mich 43 , 49 NW2d 52 (1951); Montalto v. … Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A2d 914 (Del 1967); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So2d 49 (Fla App 1966); Kavanngh v. Butorac, 221 NE2d 824 (Ind App 1966); Cierpisz v. Singleton, 247 Md 215, 230 A2d 629 (1967); Sams v.

Zeek v. Union School District No. 5

188 Or. 45 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1949

school board.” … State v. Hingley, 32 Or. 440 , 52 P. 89 ; Lathen v. Campbell, 7 Kan. App. 388 , 51 P. 931 .

Keenan v. Peterson

307 Or. 323 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1989

Keenan v. Peterson, 92 Or App 703 , 759 P2d 1140 (1988). … Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 28 , 581 P2d 934 (1978). The petition here alleges neither kind of harm.

Delgado v. Souders

334 Or. 122 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 16, 2002

See State v. … At the outset, we note that the parties’ disagreement about whether ORS 30.866 is a “civil” or “criminal” statute is based upon their respective applications of the criteria that this court identified in Brown v.

Hoffman v. Habighorst

53 L.R.A. 908 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1901

Brown v. … To the same effect is Brown v. Rathburn, 10 Or. 158 ; also Denny v. Seeley, 34 Or. 364 ( 55 Pac. 976 ).

Oak Lodge Sanitary District v. General Insurance

240 Or. 103 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1965

No. 1 v. … For cases requiring unconditional acceptance under a comparable statute, see Graybar Electric Co., Inc. v. Manufacturers Casualty Co., 21 NJ 517, 122 A2d 624 (1956); Paul H. Jaehnig, Inc. v. Standard Accident Ins.

Alvarez v. Retail Credit Ass'n

234 Or. 255 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 15, 1963

See, e.g., Gumm v. Heider, 220 Or 5 , 348 P2d 455 (1960). Punitive damages may equally be allowed when civil proceedings are employed against another for improper motives. They were allowed in Brown v. … Brown v.

Steelhammer v. Clackamas County

170 Or. 505 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1943

Kamer v. Clatsop County, supra. The proceedings involved in the instant case were instituted by resolution of the county court. In Kamer v. Clatsop County, supra, the proceedings were instituted by petitions. … Jur., Easements, p. 925, § 3, citing inter alia, Tusi v. Jacobsen, 134 Or. 505 , 293 P. 587, 939 , 71 A. L. R. 1364, and Shaw v. Proffitt, 57 Or. 192 , 109 P. 584 , 110 P. 1092 , Ann. Cas. 1913A, 63.

Cormack v. Cormack

82 Or. 108 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1916

In Duniway v. Portland, 47 Or. 103, 112 ( 81 Pac. 945, 948 ), Mr. … In Hendry v. City of Salem, 64 Or. 152 ( 129 Pac. 531 ), Mr.

Enertrol Power Monitoring Corp. v. State

314 Or. 78 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 6, 1992

Mattiza v. Foster, supra, 311 Or at 4 . … or board.

State v. Kragt

368 Or. 577 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 30, 2021

In a per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected that argument, relying on its decisions in Norris v. Board of Parole, 237 Or App 1, 238 P3d 994 (2010), rev den, 350 Or 130 (2011), and Delavega v. … “At the same time, the legislature created the State Sentencing Guidelines Board (the Board) to serve as the administra- tive body that would adopt the guidelines in the form of 3 As the Court of Appeals explained

Rowley v. City of Medford

132 Or. 405 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1930

*Page 415 7 Words Phrases, title "Resolution," citing The Village of Altamont v. The Baltimore O.S.W. Ry. Co. , 184 Ill. 47 , 56 N.E. 340 , (citing Chicago N.P.R.R. Co. v. … City of Chicago , 174 Ill. 439 , 51 N.E. 596 ); Reynolds v. Blue , 47 Ala. 711 . The resolution was not a law, was not intended to be such, and was not binding on the city of Medford.

United States National Bank v. Wright

131 Or. 518 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1929

W. 197 ; McMaster v. Emerson et al., 109 Iowa 284 ( 80 N. W. 389 ); Simmons v. Anderson, 44 Minn. 487 ( 52 N. W. 47 ); Collins v. Brown, 19 Idaho 360 ( 114 P. 671 ); Snerly v. Stacy et al., 174 Ark. 978 ( 298 S. … We are not unmindful of the fact that Collins v. Brown, supra, is a decision based upon an Idaho statute, but, even so, in our opinion, the statutory provision is merely declaratory of the common law rule.

Swank v. Elwert

55 Or. 487 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1910

He also relies upon the case of Brown v. Baker, 39 Or. 66, 71 ( 65 Pac. 799 : 66 Pac. 193 ), interpreting a similar statute, applicable to the reply. … The case of Luse v. Jones, 89 N. J. Law, 707, 708, is to the contrary, and is very much in point on this question. The plaintiff was engaged in keeping a boarding house.

State v. Steele

39 Or. 419 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1901

as though a negative was expressed in each instance ; but independently of these restraints, express or implied, every subject withiD the scope of civil government is liable to be dealt with by the legislature” : People v. … App. 43 ; Perkins v. Corbin, 45 Ala. 103 ( 6 Am. Rep. 698 ); Reals v. Smith, 8 Wyo. 159 ( 56 Pac. 690 ). 4. There is another contention, that the subject of Mr.

Abbott v. BOB'S U-DRIVE

222 Or. 147 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 25, 1960

An order directing a party to arbitrate is not essential to give the board of arbitrators jurisdiction where the parties submit their controversy to the board pur *154 suant to their written agreement to arbitrate. … But we are not here presented with a case in which a recalcitrant party questions the jurisdiction of the board or the court; here Bob’s TJ-Drive made a general appearance before the board and thereafter made a general appearance