Case law

Cave v. Brown & McCabe, Stevedores, Inc.

128 Or. 286 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1929

To like effect are Shields v. W. R. Grace & Co., 91 Or. 187 ( 179 Pac. 265 ); Van Duzen Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Schelies, 61 *291 Ohio St. 298 ( 55 N. E. 998 ); Coast S. S. Co. v. Brady, 8 Fed. (2d) 16; Long v. … Miller, 41 Or. 103 ( 68 Pac. 400 ); Merrill v. Missouri Bridge & Iron Co., 69 Or. 585 ( 140 Pac. 439 ); Caldwell Banking & T. Co. v. Porter, 52 Or. 318 (95 *292 Pac. 1, 97 Pac. 541 ); Meier v. Northern Pacific Ry.

Kragt v. Board of Parole

373 Or. 191 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 16, 2025

In State v. … Here is a visual summary of the board’s interpretation: 196 Kragt v.

Long v. Board of Parole

373 Or. 210 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 16, 2025

PER CURIAM The decision of the Court of Appeals and the final order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision are affirmed. ______________ * On judicial review from the Board of Parole and Post-Prison … We accepted review in this case at the same time that we accepted review in Kragt v. Board of Parole, ___ Or ___, ___ P3d ___ (Jan 16, 2025), which we also decided today.

Brown v. Security Savings & Trust Co.

140 Or. 615 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1932

W. 773 ), and Marshall v. Reed, 237 Mich. 336 ( 211 N.W. 637 ). In some jurisdictions, the widow has a dowable interest in equitable estates, hut it is not so in Oregon: *620 Gratton v. … Gratton’s Estate, 133 Or. 65 ( 283 P. 747 ); Bosma v. Harder, 94 Or. 219 ( 185 P. 741 ); Hadley v. Hadley, 73 Or. 179 ( 144 P. 80, 82 ); Whiteaker v. Vanschoiack, 5 Or. 113 ; Farnum v. Loomis, 2 Or. 29.

State Land Board v. Brownell

199 Or. 448 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1953

Clark v. Allen, 331 US 503 . … From United States v.

Anderson v. Board of Parole

303 Or. 618 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1987

Petitioner seeks review in this court, alleging that the notice of the action of the Board of Parole (Board) to prisoners does not satisfy ORS 144.135. … The Board’s decision in this and all cases is written on a “Board Action Form” (BAF), which is its “final order.”

Jenkins v. Board of Parole

313 Or. 234 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 21, 1992

Esperum v. Board of Parole, 296 Or 789, 795-98 , 681 P2d 1128 , on rehearing 297 Or 222 , 681 P2d 792 (1984). … A case from this court, Esperum v.

Spratt v. Brown-Petzel Lumber Co.

105 Or. 672 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1922

Plaintiff seeks to foreclose three liens npon logs belonging to defendant, Brown-Petzel Lumber Company. Plaintiff and his assignors, J. W. Krise and R. E. … Clark v. Marsiglia, 1 Denio (N. Y.), 317 ( 43 Am. Dec. 670 ); Stephens v. Howe, 2 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 133; Champion v. Hartshorne, 9 Conn. 564 ; Derby v. Johnson, 21 Vt. 21 .

State Land Board v. Sovenko

202 Or. 571 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1954

See, to the same effect: Kinney v. Uglow, 163 Or 539, 584 , 98 P2d 1006 ; Re Faling Estate, supra, 113 Or 20 ; Wemme v. … In Upham v.

State Land Board v. Kolovrat

220 Or. 448 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1960

State Land Board v. Rogers, supra. … State Land Board v. Rogers, supra ( 347 P2d at 60 ).

Brown v. Farmers & Merchants' Nat. Bank

76 Or. 113 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1915

The advertisement recites the judgment in favor of the bank against Kittie Brown and C. W. Brown, defendants, and the levy-upon “all the right, title and interest that the said Kittie Brown and C. "W. … Brown, is enough in that respect to carry the title of the plaintiff here in the property, and the use of the name “Hattie Brown” does not vitiate the previous sufficient description. .Indeed, in the trial of the case at

Dayton v. Board of Equalization

33 Or. 131 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1897

In Wall v. … Torrey v.

State Land Board v. Long

189 Or. 537 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1950

The objections filed by the State, acting through its Land Board, averred: “Said G. F. … We take from Russell v.

Engweiler v. Board of Parole

340 Or. 361 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 13, 2006

Engweiler v. Board of Parole, 197 Or App 43 , 103 P3d 1201 (2005) (Engweiler IV). We allowed review and now affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. … Or Laws 2001, ch 661, § 1. 2 In State ex rel Engweiler v. Cook, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision in State ex rel Engweiler v.

State Land Board v. Lee

84 Or. 431 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1917

Co., 52 Or. 502, 515 ( 95 Pac. 722 , 98 Pac. 160 ); State v. Warner Val. Stock Co., 56 Or. 283, 308 ( 106 Pac. 780 , 108 Pac. 861 ); Silverton v. Brown, 63 Or. 418, 424 ( 128 Pac. 45 ); State v. Warner Val. … Brown, 2 Ill. 106 ; Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 1 Watts (Pa.), 54 ( 26 Am. Dec. 33 ); Glover v. Wilson, 6 Pa. St. 290; Eastern State Hospital v. Graves Committee, 105 Va. 151 ( 52 S. E. 837 , 8 Ann. Cas. 701, 3 L. R. A.

Harris v. Board of Parole

288 Or. 495 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1980

To support that conclusion the court then quoted as follows (at 488) from Curly’s Dairy v. … Johnson in his letter of May 15, 1973, to Senator Browne, Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Mr.

Wallace v. Board of Equalization

47 Or. 584 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1906

Greenwood, 10 Or. 230 : Harris v. Burr, 32 Or. 348 ( 52 Pac. 17 , 39 L. R. A. 768). Such legislative construction is valid unless the act evidencing the interpretation conflicts with the organic law (Crawford v. … Chief Justice Thompson, in Page v. Allen, 58 Pa. 338 ( 98 Am. Dec. 272 ), “is- necessarily the exclusion of things not expressed.

Alexanderson v. Board of Commissioners

289 Or. 427 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1980

Board’s order and ordered approval of the proposed partition. … Sunnyside Neighborhood v. Clackamas Co. Comm., 280 Or 3, 14-15 , 569 P2d 1063 (1977). However, there are other indications of the legislative policy.

Price v. Board of Parole

301 Or. 393 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1986

See Price v. Board of Parole, 300 Or 283 , 709 P2d 1075 (1985). … Even so, Price v. Board of Parole, supra, teaches that the court should examine the substance of the arguments advanced under the claim to see if they set forth a cognizable reason to reverse or remand.

Miller v. Medical Board

33 Or. 5 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1898

, and the other for candidates examined by the board. … By reason of his non compliance, the hoard acted within its prescribed powers in denying him the privilege by refusing him a license : Battles v. Board, 16 R. I. 372 ( 17 Atl. 131 ).