Case law

Leonard v. Bonser

130 Or. 618 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1929

Broadwell et at., 124 Or. 652 ( 265 Pac. 783 ); Barnes v. State Industrial Acc. Com., 112 Or. 41 (228 Pac. 684); Graves v. State Industrial Acc. Com., 112 Or. 143, 147, 148 ( 223 Pac. 248 ); Thomas v. … Rep. 713 ); Elwert v. Marley, 53 Or. 591 ( 99 Pac. 887 , 101 Pac. 671 , 133 Am. St. Rep. 850 ). Appeal dismissed. Brown, J., absent.

Johnson v. SAIF Corp.

343 Or. 139 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2007

The board affirmed the opinion and order of the ALJ, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the board’s decision without opinion. Johnson v. SAIF, 200 Or App 414 , 115 P3d 988 (2005). … See, e.g., Hans v.

Loveland v. Plant

132 Or. 619 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1930

L., § 560; Hawkins v. Jones, 21 Or. 502 ( 28 P. 548 ); Manary v. Runyon, 43 Or. 495, 501 ( 73 P. 1028 ). Belt, Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees, Council 75, Local 2043 v. City of Lebanon

360 Or. 809 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 2, 2017

Labor Board, 311 US 72 , 61 S Ct 83 , 85 L Ed 50 (1940), and H. J. Heinz Co. v. NLRB, 311 US 514 , 61 S Ct 320 , 85 L Ed 309 (1941). … The board relied on its prior decision in OPEU v.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct Johnson

300 Or. 52 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1985

Supove et al v. Densmoor et ux, 225 Or 365, 372 , 358 P2d 510 (1961). We find the following to be the pertinent facts. … Supove et al v. Densmoor et ux, supra, 225 Or at 372 . 2. Determination of Conflict.

Radford v. First Nat. Bank

71 Or. 84 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1914

In Williams v. Matthews, 47 N. J. … Brown was the business manager of the plaintiffs, and transacted for the plaintiffs practically all the business with Hall. Brown has had a long experience in the lumber and sawmill business.

Rohrbacher v. Wright

99 Or. 186 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1921

He is opposed by the testimony of Cooper and Brown, who flatly deny that the Kangus place was included in the arrangement. … The suit seems to be a companion case of Rohrbacher v. Strain, 95 Or. 1 ( 186 Pac. 583 ), in which Mr.

State v. Compson

34 Or. 25 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1898

The following cases support this doctrine: Board of Revenue v. Barber, 53 Ala. 589 ; People v. Osborne, 7 Colo. 605 ( 4 Pac. 1074 ); State v. Covington, 29 Ohio St. 102 ; People v. Draper, 15 N. Y. 532 ; People v. … Section 2 of the Act creating the Board of Railroad Commissioners and prescribing its duties reads as follows: “Said commissioners constituting said board shall be chosen biennially by the Legislative Assembly of the State

Berger v. City of Salem

131 Or. 674 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1929

City of Portland, supra, are the following authorities: Miller v. Board of Public Works (Cal.), 234 P. 381, 383 (38 A. L. R. 1479); Baxley v. City of Frederick (Okla.), 271 P. 257 . In Miller v. … R. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 561, 592 .

Armstrong v. Rogue Federal Credit Union

328 Or. 154 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1998

Williams v. Waterway Terminals Co., 298 Or 506, 510 , 693 P2d 1290 (1985), citing Vaughn v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone, 289 Or 73 , 611 P2d 218 (1980). … Shaw v. Doyle Milling Co., 297 Or 251, 255 , 683 P2d 82 (1984).

Allen v. Levens

101 Or. 466 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1921

The doctrine is thus succinctly stated in Donart v. … Justice Brown took no part in the consideration of this case.

Templeton v. Linn County

15 L.R.A. 730 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1892

Va. 657; Manuel v. Board of Comrs. 98 N. C. 9 ; Fry v. Albemarle Co. 86 Va. 195 ; 19 Am. St. Rep. 879 ; Gilman v. County, 8 Cal. 52 ; 68 Am. Dec. 290 ; Woods v. Colfax Co. 10 Neb. 552 ; Monroe Co. v. … Flynt, 80 Ga. 489 ; Board of Comrs. v. Mighels, 7 Ohio St. 109 ; Freeholder v. Strader, 18 N. J. L. 108; 35 Am. Dec. 530 ; Cooley v. Freeholders, 27 N. J. L. 415; Pray v. Jersey City, 32 N. J. L. 394; Young v.

American Casualty Co. v. Corum

321 Or. 135 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 18, 1995

894 P.2d 461 (1995) 321 Or. 135 AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner on review/Respondent on review, v. Aaron T. … Brown of Cosgrave, Vergeer & Kester, Portland, filed a response brief on behalf of respondent on review Truck Ins. Exchange. MEMORANDUM OPINION The petitions for review are allowed.

In re Sucker Creek

83 Or. 228 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1917

Coughanour, 34 Or. 9, 22 ( 54 Pac. 223 ); Brown v. Baker, 39 Or. 66, 70 ( 65 Pac. 799 , 66 Pac. 193 ); Williams v. Altnow, 51 Or. 275, 300 ( 95 Pac. 200 , 97 Pac. 539 ); Davis v. … Altnow, 51 Or. 275, 298 ( 95 Pac. 200 , 97 Pac. 539 ); Brown v. Baker, 39 Or. 66, 70 ( 65 Pac. 799 , 66 Pac. 193 ); Caviness v. La Grande Irr. Co., 60 Or. 410, 422 ( 119 Pac. 731 ); Jones v.

Hartman v. Young

2 L.R.A. 596 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1888

In Hudson v. … .” *162 In Dorey v.

Denn v. Peters

36 Or. 486 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1900

To the same effect, see, also, Stokes v. Brown, 20 Or. 530 ( 26 Pac. 561 ). … Laws, § 97; Brown v. Moore, 3 Or. 435 ; Banks v. Crow, 3 Or. 477 ). That the variance was in fact immaterial, see 28 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (1 ed.), 55, and notes; Boone, Code PI. § 218.

Wright v. Ramp

41 Or. 285 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1902

And the same rule will apply if the agreement is to be construed as a contract for work or skill and the materials upon which it is bestowed: Graver v. Horn-burg, 26 Kan. 94 ; Moody v. Brown, 56 Am. Dec. 640 , and note. … Massie, 29 Or. 140 ( 44 Pac. 494 ); Moody v. Richards, 29 Or. 282 ( 45 Pac. 777 ); Daly v. Larsen, 29 Or. 535 ( 46 Pac. 143 ); Breding v. Williams, 33 Or. 391 ( 54 Pac. 206 ).

White v. White

34 Or. 141 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1899

Until then the instrument passes nothing ; it is merely ambulatory, and gives no title:” Cook v. Brown , 34 N. H. 460, 475. “Nor is any particular form of ceremony necessary to constitute a sufficient delivery. … Freeman, in an able, elaborate, and thoroughly complete monographic note to Brown v. Westerfield, 53 Am. St. Rep. 537 ( 66 N.

State v. Clatsop County

63 Or. 377 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1912

, in order to show the authority of the board in making the apportionment. … Two v. Lambert, 28 Or. 209 ( 42 Pac. 221 ) ; National Bank of D. O. Mills & Co. v. Herold, 74 Cal. 603 ( 16 Pac. 507 : 5 Am. St. Rep. 476 ) ; Dubuc v. Foss, 19 La. Ann. 210 ( 92 Am. Dec. 526 ).

State v. Butts

78 Or. 173 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1915

They are, in effect, the same as what was known at common law as an inquest of office, or inquisition, to determine whether decedent left any heirs: Hamilton v. Brown, 161 U. S. 256 ( 40 L. Ed. 691 , 16 Sup. Ct. … When an appeal involves only a moot question of law or fact, the appeal should be dismissed: State v. Brown, 5 Or. 119 ; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Dey, 76 Iowa, 278 ( 41 N. W. 17 ); Moller v.