Case law

Beck v. City of Tillamook

313 Or. 148 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1992

This case concerns the scope of judicial review of a decision of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). … We agree with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals in Mill Creek Glen Protection Assoc. v.

Love v. Love

8 Or. 23 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1879

It has been held by this court, in the case of Dolph v. … It has been decided in this court (McKay v.

Hammer v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, ETC.

283 Or. 369 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1978

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972). … Love, supra n. 1. 4 In its brief on remand, the defendant also argues that a reversal of Hammer Us required by Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v.

Savelich Logging Company v. Preston Mill Company

265 Or. 456 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 17, 1973

In Washington v. … In Cauffiel v. Glenn, 345 Pa 181, 27 A2d 30 (1942) and Borowsky v.

Multnomah County v. First National Bank

151 Or. 342 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1935

Oregon Fruit Growers Association v. Lents, 107 Or. 561 ( 212 P. 811 ); McLaughlin v. Helgerson, 116 Or. 310 ( 241 P. 50 ); State v. Eaton, 119 Or. 613 ( 250 P. 233 ); State ex rel. v. … The amendment is therefore repugnant to the constitution as embracing a subject not mentioned in the title of the act: Gaston v. Thompson, 89 Or. 412 ( 174 P. 717 ); State v.

Western Generation Agency v. Department of Revenue

327 Or. 327 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1998

The board of directors consists of six members, three appointed by CPUD and three appointed by EWEB. Board members “serve at the pleasure of’ their appointing governing bodies. … ORS 174.020; PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993).

Peek v. Skelley Lumber Co.

59 Or. 374 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1911

Cases in this court fully settle this question: Crawford v. … That language is a reservation in the board of a right to control his acts, but the authority is complete in the matters enumerated until the board has affirmatively directed otherwise. See Bates v.

State v. DILLS STICE

244 Or. 188 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1966

Later, they returned to the Coburg Road house and found that the hot iron had scorched a dress left on the ironing board and the ironing board cover, but, as nothing had caught fire, Mrs. … Again, in Monroe v.

Jones v. Ross

82 Or. 706 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1917

L., provides that the power of sale may be exercised without an order of the court: Brown v. Brown, 7 Or. 286 , 299; Northrop v. Marquam, 16 Or. 173, 187 ( 18 Pac. 449 ). 2. … The distinction between an executor and a testamentary trustee is recognized and the difference between their powers is noted in Brown v. Brown, 7 Or. 286 , 299. See, also, Thorsen v.

Wheeler v. Boise Cascade Corp.

298 Or. 452 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1985

The Court of Appeals reversed the Board by distinguishing Hutcheson and Weller . The Court of Appeals held that the record did not support the Weller and Stupfel v. … The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board is reinstated. 1 In Weller v.

Wells v. Page

48 Or. 74 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1905

Brown, 34 Or. 454 ( 56 Pac. 171 , 45 L. R. A. 642); Hampton v. Speckenagle, 9 Serg. & R. 212 ( 11 Am. Dec. 704 ); Bigler v. Morgan, 77 N. Y. 312 ; Gray v. Smith, 83 Fed. 824 ( 28 C. C. A. 168 ); Mix v. … Beach, 46 Ill. 311 ; Wallace v. McLaughlin, 57 Ill. 53 ; Peck v. Brighton Co. 69 Ill. 200 ; Birge v. Bock, 24 Mo. App. 330 . In Sievers v. Brown, 34 Or. 454 (45 L. R.

Andrews v. Sercombe

82 Or. 616 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1917

, to the official board or quarterly conference for consideration, approval, and directions. … Talbot, 32 Ky. (2 Dana) 258 ; Jones v. Plater, 2 Gill (Md.), 125 ( 41 Am. Dec. 408 ). The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Affirmed.

Oregon-Wash. R. & N. Co. v. Johnson

87 Or. 240 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1918

laws the duties imposed on the county clerk or auditor shall be performed by the clerical officer or auditor of the tax-levying district and the duties imposed upon the county court shall be performed by the tax-levying board … It has been held by this court in State ex rel. v. Johnson, 80 Or. 107, 112 ( 156 Pac. 579 ), that a disregard of the budget law is fatal to the validity of a tax levy.

State v. Jensen

209 Or. 239 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1957

State v. Morris, 83 Or 429, 445 , 163 P 567 ; State v. Brown, supra at p 202. Furthermore, it is immaterial whether the defendant Jensen or his codefendant Chesley actually delivered the blows which killed Mrs. Hile. … State v. Brown, 113 Or 149, 153 , 231 P 926 ; State v. Carroll, 155 Or 85 , 62 P2d 830 ; ORS 161.220; People v. Seiler, 246 NY 262 , 158 NE 615 ; 41 CJS 42, Homicide § 322.

Lizotte v. Eastern Oregon Hospital

303 Or. 456 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1987

The Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) affirmed and adopted the opinion of the referee without elaboration. After our decision in Barrett v. … Gettman v. SAIF, 289 Or 609, 612-13 , 616 P2d 473 (1980). However, the circumstances of this case suggest that the Court of Appeals may have affirmed the Board under an erroneous interpretation of the law.

State v. Davis

315 Or. 484 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1993

The case is remanded to the circuit court for resentencing. 1 In State v. … See State v.

Dix v. Port of Port Orford

131 Or. 157 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1929

Under the rules of this court it is a waiver of the right to be heard: Johnson v. White, 60 Or. 611 , ( 112 Pac. 1083 , 119 Pac. 769 ). … It held title to property which had been acquired for strictly corporate uses: City National Bank v. Kiowa, 104 Okl. 161 , ( 230 P. 894 , 39 A. L. R. 206 (note)).

State v. Herzog

324 Or. 294 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1996

The trial court held that that scientific technique satisfied the standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence articulated by the court in State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984). … See State v. Lyons, 324 Or 256 , 261 n 7, 924 P2d 802 (1996) (discussing the admissibility of DNA evidence). The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgments of the circuit court are affirmed.

State v. O'Donnell

36 Or. 222 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1900

E. 452 ); People v. Foley, 64 Mich. 148 ( 31 N. W. 94 ); State v. Williamson, 106 Mo. 162 ( 17 S. W. 172 ); State v. Perry. 136 Mo. 126 ( 37 S. W. 804 ); Brown v. Commonwealth, 76 Pa. St. 319. Mr. … E. 817 ); Commonwealth v. Choate, 105 Mass. 451 ; Brown v.

Solomon v. Glickman

140 Or. 364 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1932

Having this day held in Glickman v. Solomon that the judgment therein was merely voidable and, therefore, not subject to collateral attack, it follows that the judgment in the instant case is affirmed. Bean, C. … J., Brown and Campbell, JJ., concur.