Case law

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.

Hanson v. Mosser

247 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1967

James & Yost v. Board of Higher Edu., 216 Or 598 , 340 P2d 577 (1959). … In Inge v.

Nicholson v. Salem Area Transit & Saif Corp.

320 Or. 391 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1994

Therefore, according to the court, under the last sentence of ORS 656.704(3), 3 the Board had no jurisdiction over the dispute. Nicholson v. … Claimant requested a hearing before the Board under ORS 656.283(1). The Board held that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 6 In Hathaway v.

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

Zanietta v. McCulloch

130 Or. 396 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 9, 1929

In Hydraulic Mining Co. v. Smith, 100 Or. 86 ( 196 Pac. 811 ), and in Day v. … In State Land Board v. Lee, 84 Or. 431 ( 165 Pac. 372 ), in a decision written by Mr.

Moore v. Frazer

15 Or. 635 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1888

In Biddle v. … And the same principle is stated in Crane v. Hardy, 1 Mich. 56 ; Shafer v. Bolander, 4 Iowa, 201 ; Griffith v. Bogert, 18 How. 158 ; Laudes v. Perkins, 12 Mo. 329 ; Butterfield v. Walsh, 21 Iowa, 97 ; Yates v. St.

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

Kelley v. Devin

65 Or. 211 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 20, 1913

Brown v. Lord, 7 Or. 302 , cited by the defendant here, was a *216 suit to compel specific performance of an agreement said to have been made by a father, then deceased, to convey, land to his son. … Other cases showing that it is competent to make such a contract are Johnson v. Hubbell, 10 N. J. Eq. 332 ( 66 Am. Dec. 773 ); Brown v. Sutton, 129 U. S. 238 ( 32 L. Ed. 664 , 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273); Teske v.

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.

Matter of Compensation of Grable

291 Or. 387 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1981

On review, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed and adopted the referee’s Opinion and Order. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. In the Matter of the Compensation of Grable v. … In those cases, we remanded to the Court of Appeals to remand to the Board for the Board to consider the circumstances in light of this opinion.

Columbia Nav. Co. v. Vancouver Trans. Co.

32 Or. 532 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1898

And this is the doctrine of the authorities: Calvert v. Idaho Stage Company, 25 Or. 412 ( 36 Pac. 24 ); Finnegan v. … A. 308 ( 66 Fed. 27 ); Prentice v. United States Steamship Company, 58 Fed. 702 ; Oakes v. Cattaraugas Water Company, 143 N. Y. 430 (26 L. R. A. 544, 38 N. E. 461 ); Bank of Middlebury v.

Pilloud v. Linn-Benton Memorial Park Ass'n

228 Or. 324 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1961

We take the following from Bennett v. … State v. Claypool, 145 Or. 615 , 28 P. 2d 882 ; Bramwell v. Rowland, 123 Or. 33 , 261 P. 57 ; Oregon v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 52 Or. 502, 528 , 95 P. 722 , 98 P. 160 ; 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, 254, § 67.”

Nieminen v. Pitzer

281 Or. 53 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1978

Wershow v. McVeety Machinery, 263 Or 97, 102-103 , 500 P2d 696 (1972). … Klinker v. Klinker, 132 Cal App2d 687, 283 P2d 83, 88 (1955); Advanced Management Research, Inc. v. Emanuel, 439 Pa 385, 266 A2d 673, 676 (1970); Brown v. Brown, 135 W Va 579, 64 SE2d 620, 627 (1951).

Fehl v. Lewis

155 Or. 499 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1936

Cardigan v. White, 18 Fed. (2d) 572. … If in custody at all, he is in custody of the parole officer and parole board. Neither the parole officer nor any member of the parole board is a party hereto.

Monger Et Ux. v. Dimmick

187 Or. 253 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1949

The agreed price was to be $1.50 per M. board feet for red and yellow fir and ponderosa pine, $5.00 per M. board feet for sugar pine, and $1.00 per M. board feet for white fir and all other lands of merchantable timber. … . * * * ” Adams v.

Wheeler Lumber, Bridge & Supply Co. v. Shelton

146 Or. 550 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1934

Brown, 49 Or. 423, 425 ( 90 P. 673 ). In Fulp v. … L., p. 79, § 58; Merinella v. Swartz, 123 Wash. 521 ( 212 P. 1052 ); Schumann v. Bank of California, 114 Or. 336, 344 ( 233 P. 860 , 37 A. L. R. 1531, 1538); Rawley v. Brown, 71 N. Y. 85, 89 .

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Smith

289 Or. 501 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1980

One member of the Board dissented by an opinion in which he agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Trial Board. … See Megdal v. Board of Dental Examiners, 288 Or 293 , 605 P2d 273 (1980).” It is clear from the record that the conduct of the accused does not come within terms of DR 9-101(A), (B) or (C).

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Lee

242 Or. 302 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1965

The fee charged by Lee was in violation of ORS 656.590 as construed by the majority opinion in Cox v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 168 Or 508 , 121 P2d 919 , 123 P2d 800 , 159 ALR 899 . … When the vote came before the Board of Governors of the Oregon State Bar, the Board found Lee guilty of all three charges.

State v. Williams

313 Or. 19 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1992

State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 356 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). … Testimony about Board of Parole Practices Defendant next argues that the trial court erred by excluding testimony from an employee of the Board of Parole concerning the Board’s legal interpretation of aggravated murder sentencing

Federal Cartridge Corp. v. Helstrom

202 Or. 557 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1954

See Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 350 . … F. of L. et al. v. Bain et al., 165 Or. 183 , 106 P. 2d 544 , 130 A.L.R. 1278 ) and is presumed to be constitutional. (Tompkins v. District Boundary Board, 180 Or. 339 , 177 P. 2d 416 ; State v.