Case law

Norton v. State Compensation Department

252 Or. 75 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1968

A copy of the notice of denial shall be mailed to the board, and to the contributing employer by the department. … Terney v. Belton, 239 Or 101, 104 , 396 P2d 557 (1964).

State v. Smith

127 Or. 680 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1928

State, 58 Ala. 66 ; State v. Goldman, 44 Tex. 104 ; Bibber v. Simpson, 59 Me. 181 ; Wert v. Clutter, 37 Ohio St. 347 ; People ex rel. v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 110 Ill. 180, 185 ; State v. Noyes, 47 Me. 189 . … In State v. Medical Examining Board, 32 Minn. 324 ( 20 N. W. 238 , 50 Am. Rep. 575 ), and upheld by this court in the case of State v.

Corder v. a & J Lumber Co., Inc.

223 Or. 443 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1960

Defendant delivered to plaintiff during the prescribed period only 363,368 board feet of timber. In no three-months’ period did it deliver as much as 150,000 board feet. … This contention is disposed of by the case of Public Market Co. v. Portland, 171 Or 522 , 130 P2d 624 , 138 P2d 916 .

Thrift v. Laird

115 Or. 489 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1925

R. 1315), and authorities therein cited; Ward v. James, 84 Or. 375 ( 164 Pac. 370, 372 ). … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Ray v. Davis

249 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1968

Panning v. Gilliland, 37 Or. 369 , 61 Pac. 636 , 67 Pac. 209 (1900); Kemp v. Polk Co., 46 Or 546 , 81 Pac. 240 (1905).” … Kemp v. Polk County, 46 Or 547 , 81 P 240 (1905).

Salem Police Employees Union v. City of Salem

308 Or. 383 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1989

In Megdal v. … See Labor Board v. Katz, 369 US 736 , 82 S Ct 1107 , 8 L Ed 2d 230 (1962).

Carney v. Barrett

4 Or. 171 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1871

(Varney v. Young, 11 Vermont, 258; Hunt v. Thompson, 3 Scammon, 179; Angel v. McLellan, 16 Mass. 28 ; Van Valkinburgh v. Watson, 13 Johns. 480 ; Owen v. White, 5 Porter, 435 ; Gordon v. … Potter, 17 Vermont, 350; Raymond v. Loyl, 10 Barbour, 483.)

Central Oregon Irrigation Co. v. Young

107 Or. 39 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1923

and later through its desert land board. … A. 113); Allred v. Smith, 135 N. C. 443 ( 47 S. E. 597 , 65 L. R. A. 924); Kamm v. Rees, 177 Fed. 14 ( 100 C. C. A. 432 ).

Weber v. Jordan Valley Irrigation District

109 Or. 426 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1923

Dist., 108 Or. 598 ( 216 Pac. 1020 ), citing Creig v. Owyhee Irr. Dist., 102 Or. 265 ( 202 Pac. 222 ), and In re Central Irr. … Co. v. John Day Irr. Dist., 106 Or. 140 ( 211 Pac. 781 ), that, after confirmation, a suit of this character cannot be maintained by a land owner.

Gibbons v. Hood River Irr. Dist.

66 Or. 208 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1913

The amendment of Section 6186 imposes upon the board of directors the duty before devolving upon the assessor, namely, the duty of preparing a budget of the financial needs of the defendant company for the following year, … Therefore, the amendment cannot apply to obligations existing at the time of the enactment: Strand v. Griffith, 63 Wash. 334 ( 115 Pac. 512 ). 2.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Burrows

291 Or. 135 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1981

In effect, both the Trial Board and the Disciplinary Review Board found that the Oregon State Bar had not carried its burden of proof and that Burrows was not guilty of the fourth cause. We agree. … See, e.g., State v. Atteberry, 39 Or App 141 (1979); State v.

Anderson v. Richards

100 Or. 641 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1921

BROWN, J. 1. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the complaint for the reason that plaintiff does not aver in express terms that his possession was exclusive. … Brown, 63 Or. 418, 422 ( 128 Pac. 45 ): “The possession of land may be shown by the evidence of different modes of possession, such as inclosure, the erection of buildings, or other improvements, or in any way that clearly

Links v. Anderson

86 Or. 508 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1917

Under Section 34 the assessment-payer or other interested person has the right to institute the proceedings if the board has not acted. … We are called upon to examine the election which as we have seen was properly ordered and we áre not in the present instance reviewing the action of the County Court as a canvassing board. We are taught in Hartman v.

Daly v. Marsh

140 Or. 341 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1932

BROWN, J. This is a suit to foreclose a mortgage, in which the title to the real property involved is questioned. … This is a companion case to that of Bussone v. Marsh et al., decided this day, and the two were consolidated and argued together before this court.

Patton v. Nixon

33 Or. 159 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1898

In Watson v. … Bates, testifies that defendant advised her to charge her mother for board, stating that she paid her while boarding with her.

Coates v. Marion County

96 Or. 334 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 18, 1920

There are a few jurisdictions in which such evidence is held to be incompetent for that purpose, but this court has definitely held that it is competent: Galvin v. … Brown *341 & McCabe, 53 Or. 598 ( 101 Pac. 671 ); Gynther v. Brown & McCabe, 67 Or. 310 ( 134 Pac. 1186 ). 4.

Lyon v. Willamette Lutheran Homes, Inc.

240 Or. 56 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1965

Smith v. Eliza Jennings Home (1964), 176 Ohio St 351, 199 NE 733 ; First National Bank of Lawrence v. … Board of Charities (1929), 253 Ill App 380; Kirkpatrick Home for Childless Women v. Kenyon (1922), 119 Misc. 349 , 196 NYS 250 , affd. 206 App Div 728 , 199 NYS 851 ; Evangelical Lutheran St. Stephan’s Congregation v.

Sorenson v. Brice Realty Company

204 Or. 223 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1955

Bush v. Mattingly, 62 Ariz 483, 158 P2d 665 ; Thompson v. Carey’s Beal Estate, 335 Mich 474 , 56 NW2d 255 ; Boris-off v. Schatten, 335 Mich 684 , 57 NW2d 430 ; Gonnerton v. Andrews, 195 Wis 433, 218 NW 817 ; Niemann v. … Based upon Portland Realty Board rates, it is agreed between the parties that the total commission due defendant corporation would be $12,000.

Barker v. Ireland

238 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1964

Bryant v. State, 233 Or 459, 461 , 378 P2d 951 (1963). Cf. Anderson v. … See Bryant v. State, supra. Probation is not a matter of right, but a matter of discretion.

Dewey v. A. F. Klaveness & Co.

233 Or. 515 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1963

Defendant primarily rests its ease on Zickriek v. Cooke et al, 1953, 197 Or 87 , 252 P2d 185 . Defendant claims that Zickriek and this case are undistinguishable. We do not agree. … A reasonable man could have anticipated that the “walking boards” provided by defendant would not support the loads that were intended to be used upon them.