Case law

McIntosh v. Schops

92 Or. 307 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 13, 1919

The case of Claflin v. Meyer, 75 N. Y. 260 ( 31 Am. … would take under similar circumstances of his own property, caused or permitted or contributed to cause or permit that burglary. ’ ’ The same conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court of Washington in the case of Colburn v.

Hollywood Orchards Co. v. Dennis, Kimball & Pope

124 Or. 71 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1928

Huffman, 49 Or. 486 ( 90 Pac. 907 ); Taylor v. Brown, 49 Or. 423, 425 ( 90 Pac. 673 ); Wallace v. Baisley, 22 Or. 572 ( 30 Pac. 432 ). … J., and Belt and Brown, JJ., concur.

In Re Illidge

162 Or. 393 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1939

On July 18, 1938, the Oregon State Bar filed with its Board of Governors a complaint charging W. A. Illidge, a member of the Oregon State Bar with unprofessional conduct. … Schwarz v. Robinson, 113 N. Y. S. 995, 129 App. Div. 404 ; United States v. Lee, 107 Fed. 702 ; Martin v. Anderson, 21 Ga. 301 ; Brown v. Payson, 6 N. H. 443; Ex parte Gfeller, 178 Mo. 248 , 77 S.

Johnson v. City of Pendleton

131 Or. 46 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1929

They base their contention upon the decisions of this court in the cases of Board of Directors v. Peterson, 64 Or. 46 ( 128 P. 837 , 129 P. 123 ); Oregon-Wisconsin Timber Co. v. … See State ex rel. v.

Ferris v. MEEKER FERTILIZER COMPANY

258 Or. 377 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1971

In Widing v. … In Hunter v.

Stroh v. State Accident Insurance Fund

261 Or. 117 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1972

Demitro v. State Industrial Accident Comm, supra, and McCain v. State Tax Comm, supra, are overruled. … See for example, Meierdierck v.

State v. Stookey

253 Or. 367 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 16, 1969

State v. Henderson, 182 Or 147, 196 , 184 P2d 392 , 186 P2d 519 (1947). *369 There was no evidence of any other possible criminal conduct for which the defendant was seeking to avoid arrest. … State v. Brown, 231 Or 297, 300 , 372 P2d 779 (1962). Affirmed.

Summerville v. Gillespie

181 Or. 144 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1947

The court in West v. … Parelius, 166 Or. 174 , 111 P. (2d) *150 88; Brown v. Fields, 160 Or. 23 , 83 P. (2d) 144 ; Bunnell v. Parelius, 160 Or. 673, 677 , 87 P. (2d) 230; Kantola v. Lovell Auto Co., 157 Or. 534 , 72 P. (2d) 61 ; French v.

Simpson v. First Nat. Bank

94 Or. 147 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1919

H. 380; Brown v. Wilson, 45 S. C. 519 ( 23 S. E. 630 , 55 Am. St. Rep. 779 ). … Brown, 182 Iowa, 1044 ( 165 N. W. 70 ); Hughes v. Nelson, 29 N. J. Eq. 547, 550.

McKibben v. Paulus

292 Or. 729 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1982

In Phipps v. … See Burbidge v. Paulus, 289 Or 35, 41-43 , 609 P2d 815 (1980); Zajonc v. Paulus, supra.

State v. Stannard

84 Or. 450 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 15, 1917

In Grant County v. … S.) 1051); Andrews v. Neil, 61 Or. 471 ( 120 Pac. 383 , 123 Pac. 32 ); Bowers v. Niel, 64 Or. 104 ( 128 Pac. 433 ); Wingate v. Clatsop County, 71 Or. 94 ( 142 Pac. 561 ); Stoppenback v.

Crawford's Estate

51 Or. 76 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1908

Ed. 251 ); United States v. Gomez, 68 U. S. (1 Wall.) 690 ( 17 L. Ed. 677 ); Hewitt v. Filbert, 116 U. S. (9 Davis) 142 (6 Sup. Ct. 319: 29 L. Ed. 581 ); Brown v. McConnell, 124 U. S. (17 Davis) 489 (8 Sun. … v.

State v. Olsen

241 Or. 212 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1965

. ■ Defendant’s sole contention of prejudicial error justifying a reversal is based upon the admission into evidence as an exhibit a brown paper sack and its contents. … State v. Hood, 225 Or 40, 47 , 356 P2d 1100 . This appeal is totally without merit and the judgment is affirmed.

Obenchain v. Daggett

68 Or. 374 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1913

Thus in Swartz v. Board of Commrs. of Lake County, 158 Ind. 141 ( 63 N. … Justice Bean in Eaton v. Mimnaugh, 43 Or. 465 ( 73 Pac. 754 ); also in Brix v. Clatsop County, 46 Or. 223 ( 80 Pac. 650 ); Bowers v. Neil, 64 Or. 104 ( 128 Pac. 433 ).

Harris v. Schnitzer

146 Or. 391 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1933

We quote from Greig v. … This duty is well stated in Sabin v. Wilkins, supra, and in Currie v. Bowman, 25 Or. 364 , 35 P. 848 .

Anderson v. Farr

97 Or. 137 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1920

The objection that the act in question contravenes Article I, Section 20, of our state Constitution has been decided adversely to plaintiffs’ contention in State v. … to defraying the expenses of the board and the remainder shall be paid as it is received by the treasurer of the Oregon Board of Pharmacy into the state school fund.

Clasen v. Kennedy

126 Or. 99 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1928

In Foster v. … Robbins, 8 Or. 278 ; Huston v. Bybee, 17 Or. 140 ( 20 Pac. 51 , 2 L. R. A. 568): Combs v. Slayton, 19 Or. 99 ( 26 Pac. 661 ); Curtis v. La Grande Water Co., 20 Or. 34 ( 23 Pac. 808 , 25 Pac. 378 , 10 L. R.

Brauer v. City of Portland

35 Or. 471 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1899

Hall and Chester V. Dolph. Mr. Justice Bean delivered the opinion. This case was submitted with that of De Boest v. … In Ah Lep v.

Burrell v. City of Portland

61 Or. 105 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1912

In the case of Cunningham et al v. … Whether the contract shall be let upon the unit plan, or by some other method, should be decided by the board, and not by the court. 12 Cur. Law, p. 1479; Shannon v. Portland, 38 Or. 382 ( 62 Pac. 50 ) ; Anderson v. St.

State v. Futch

324 Or. 297 · 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 this court in State v. … Brown, 297 Or. 404 , 687 P.2d 751 (1984). *833 The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Futch, 123 Or.App. 176 , 860 P.2d 264 (1993).