Case law

Boise-Payette Lumber Co. v. Dominican Sisters of Ontario & German American Trust Co.

102 Or. 314 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1921

BROWN, J. At the beginning, we shall observe that we.are not deciding whether the defendant is liable to plaintiff in an action at law for the building material furnished by plaintiff and used in the construction of St. … The right to assert and perfect a mechanic’s lien is a statutory privilege: Brown v. Harper, 4 Or. 89 . This privilege may be exercised or waived, as the lienor may prefer: Hughes v.

Wallowa County v. Oakes

46 Or. 33 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1904

commissioners for the transaction of county business: County of Union v. … As analogous to the legal principle there announced and illustrative' of the decision rendered, see Grant County v. Lake County, 17 Or. 453 ( 21 Pac. 447 ); State v. Baker County, 24 Or. 141 ( 33 Pac. 530 ); Flagg v.

Columbia County v. Massie

31 Or. 292 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 1897

And again in County Board of Education v. Bateman, 102 N. C. 52 ( 11 Am. St. Rep. 708 , 8 S. … In addition to these adjudications, the following decisions and authorities therein cited may also be referred to as bearing upon this discussion, and fully supporting the doctrine announced: Board of Supervisors v.

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. State Tax Commission

228 Or. 112 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1961

Board denied said appeals. … Such is the holding in the cases cited by the Petitioners, to-wit: State v. Jemez Land Co., (N.M.) 226 P 890 ; City of Newark v. Timer, (N.J.) 170 A 37; Robinson v.

Fox & Co. v. Roman Catholic Bishop

107 Or. 557 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 22, 1923

This is the doctrine taught in Avery v. Butler, supra, and in all like cases. … Bean, Brown and McCotjrt, JJ., concur.

French v. C. F. & T. Co.

124 Or. 686 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1928

BROWN, J. It should not be necessary to state that this is not a suit for an accounting. However, the word “accounting” is mentioned in two places in the record before us. … Bush, 35 Or. 114 ( 56 Pac. 646 ); Stacy v. McNicholas, 76 Or. 167 ( 144 Pac. 96 , 148 Pac. 67 ); Anderson v. Robinson, 63 Or. 236 ( 126 Pac. 988 , 127 Pac. 546 ); Scandinavian-American Bank v. Wentworth Lbr.

State Ex Rel. Van Winkle v. Farmers Union Cooperative Creamery

160 Or. 205 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 10, 1938

In Albert v. Milk Control Board, 210 Ind. 283 ( 200 N. … Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 281 U. S. 146, 159 .

City of Molalla v. COOVER ET UX.

192 Or. 233 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1951

Silverton v. Brown, 63 Or. 418 , 128 P. 45 . … The Schooling case has also been cited with approval in Silverton v. Brown and Booth v. Prineville, both supra.

Raymond v. Coffey

5 Or. 132 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1873

(Opdyke v. Stephens, 4 Dutcher, 89; Brown v. Willey, 42 Penn. St. 205; Waterman v. Johnson, 13 Pick, 261; Blake v. … (Baker v. Talbot, 6 Monroe, 180.)

Heisler v. Hamilton Mammoth Mines Co.

110 Or. 403 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1924

Allen v. Elwert, 29 Or. 428, 445 ( 44 Pac. 824 , 48 Pac. 54 ), is authority for respondent’s position. This case was reviewed and the subject matter discussed in the later case of Christman v. … Bean, Brown and Rand, JJ., concur.

Williams v. Goose Lake Valley Irr. Co.

83 Or. 302 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1917

In Brown v. Bridges, 31 Iowa, 138, 145 , Mr. … Law (2 ed.), 452; Brown v. Bridges, 31 Iowa, 138 ; Davis v. Nash, 32 Me. 411 . For the destruction of an irrigating ditch: Hayden v. Consolidated Min. etc. Co., 3 Cal. App. 136 , ( 84 Pac. 422 ).

State v. Guglielmo

46 Or. 250 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1905

It has been repeatedly held in this State that the form of indictment given in the statute was sufficient: State v. Dodson, 4 Or. 64 ; State v. Spencer, 6 Or. 152 ; State v. Brown, 7 Or. 186 ; State v. … The King, 6 Brown, Parl. Cases, 345; United States v. Tureaud (C. C.), 20 Fed. 621 .

Hayden v. Long

8 Or. 244 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1880

Were you a juror in tbe case of Brown v. Long, tried here yesterday ? Answer: “I was.” 2. … In the case of the State v.

Carlson v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

118 Or. 542 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1926

Beaver Hill Coal Co., 54 Or. 210, 222, 223 ( 94 Pac. 181 , 95 Pac. 498 , 102 Pac. 175, 1016 ); State v. Kelly et al., ante, p. 397 ( 247 Pac. 146 ), decided June 22, 1926. The case of Olson v. … Bean, Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Smith

316 Or. 55 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1993

In Ramstead, v. … “Statements made before various administrative boards and commissions have been recognized as absolutely privileged.” 219 at 388 (citations omitted).

Winn v. Taylor

98 Or. 556 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1920

BROWN, J. … L.; Stokes v. Brown, 20 Or. 530 ( 26 Pac. 561 ); Denn v. Peters, 36 Or. 486, 490 ( 59 Pac. 1109 ); Creecy v. Joy, 40 Or. 28, 31 ( 66 Pac. 295 ).

DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT v. Crook County

351 Or. 318 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 10, 2011

267 P.3d 158 (2011) 351 Or. 318 DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT v. CROOK COUNTY. No. (S059708). Supreme Court of Oregon. November 10, 2011. Petition for Review Allowed. … The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and this case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 351 Or. 219 , 264 P.3d 1265 (2011).

Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix

Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2015

Brown v. Brown, 206 Or App 239, 248, 136 P3d 745 (2006), rev den, 341 Or 449 (2006) (internal quotation and cita- tion omitted); see also Central Oregon Fabricators, Inc. v. … ORCP 23 B; Navas v.

Peaslee v. Gordon Falls Electric Co.

68 Or. 244 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1913

In Congdon v. … In the case of Snell v.

Bunch v. Standard Oil Co.

144 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1933

Scrivener, 18 Fed. (2d) 162; and Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.), 297 S. W. 267 . In Phillips v. Western Union Telegraph Company, supra, plaintiff’s action was based upon injuries to his wife. … Western Union Telegraph Company v. Brown, supra, is the last of the series of cases cited by appellant involving the liability of the company by reason of the neglignece of its servants. In that case Mrs.