Case law

Shainwald v. City of Portland

153 Or. 167 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1936

Seattle, supra; Bostick v. Pernot, 165 Ark. 581 ( 265 S. W. 356 ); Jenney v. Des Moines, 103 Iowa 347 ( 72 N. W. 550 ). … Ct. 860 ); Brewer v. City of Point Pleasant, 114 W. Va. 572 ( 172 S. E. 717 ); Francis v. City of Bowling Green, 259 Ky. 525 ( 82 S. W. (2d) 804 ).

Wingate v. Astoria

39 Or. 603 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1901

City of Salem, 24 Or. 504 ( 34 Pac. 9, 691 ); Barkley v. Oregon City, 24 Or. 515 ( 33 Pac. 978 ); Strout v. City of Portland, 26 Or. 294 ( 38 Pac. 126 ); Balfe v. hammers, 109 Ind. 347 ( 10 N. … W. 349 ); State v. Judges of District Court, 51 Minn. 539 ( 53 N. W. 800 , 55 N.

McCall v. Porter

42 Or. 49 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1902

Rep. 727 ); Carson v. Gentner, 33 Or. 512 ( 52 Pac. 506 , 43 L. R. A. 130); Browning v. Lewis, 39 Or. 11 ( 64 Pac. 304 ); Long, Irr. § 52; Kinney, Irr. § 181; Saint v. Guerrerio, 17 Colo. 448 ( 35 Pac. 335 , 31 Am. St. … And so it was held in the recent ease of Browning v.

City of Portland v. Welch

229 Or. 308 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1961

Brown, 354 US 436 , 77 S Ct 1325 , 1 L Ed2d 1469, where, after a finding that certain books were obscene, an injunction was allowed against their further distribution. … Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 US 436 , 77 S Ct 1325 , 1 L Ed2d 1469. It should be obvious that the city *322 has yet another protection against purveyors of obscenity. State v.

State v. Garrett

228 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1961

This court has s'o held in Portland v. Erickson, 39 Or 1 , 62 P 753 ; State v. Minnick, 33 Or 158 , 54 P 223 , and State v. Ellis, 3 Or 497 . … A plea of former jeopardy is not a plea to the merits (Potter v. State, 91 Fla 938, 109 So 91; State v. Ellsworth, 131 NC 773, 42 SE 699 , 92 Am S R 790; State v.

Blakeley v. First National Bank

151 Or. 655 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1935

In Huddelson v. … The court cited Banfield v. Crispen, supra; Patty v. Salem Flouring Mills, 53 Or. 350 ( 96 P. 1106 , 98 P. 251 , 100 P. 298 ); Rugh v. Soleim, 92 Or. 329 *662 ( 180 P. 930 ); First National Bank v.

Edd v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

127 Or. 500 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1928

Co. v. Lee, 174 Ky. 210 ( 192 S. W. 70 , Ann. Cas. 1918C, 1026, and note). The action sounds in tort (Western Union Tel. Co. v. Brown, 234 U. S. 542 ( 58 L. Ed. 1457 , 34 Sup. Ct. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Columbia River Fishermen's Protective Union v. City of St. Helens

160 Or. 654 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1938

Or. 359, 227 P. 286 ; State v. Hume, 52 Or. 1 , 95 P. 808 ; Monroe v. Withycombe, 84 Or. 328 , 165 P. 227 ; Strandholm v. Barbey, 145 Or. 427 , 26 P. (2d) 46 ; Johnson v. Hoy, 151 Or. 196 , 47 P. (2d) 252 ; Driscoll v. … See Taylor Sands Fishing Co. v. State Land Board, 56 Or. 156 , 108 P. 126 . The provision for a statutory penalty for polluting a stream is not a bar to prosecuting a suit to prevent the same: 26 C. J. 619, § 36.

Wertz v. Wertz

125 Or. 53 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1928

Appellant relies upon Therkelsen v. Therkelsen, 35 Or. 75 ( 54 Pac. 885 , 57 Pac. 373 ), but this decision was rendered prior to the amendment of Section 9751, Or. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Scheurmann v. Mathison

67 Or. 419 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1913

Cas. 130); Galvin v. Brown & McCabe, 53 Or. 489 ( 101 Pac. 671 ). *424 4. … Co. v. Pulver, 126 Ill. 329 ( 18 N. E. 804 , 9 Am. St. Rep. 598 ); Central Branch U. P. R. Co. v. Andrews, 41 Kan. 370 ( 21 Pac. 276 ). At circuit in this state the practice has not been uniform.

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.

Wakefield, Fries & Co. v. Sherman, Clay & Co.

141 Or. 270 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1932

In De Vol v. … In Ross v.

General Insurance Co. of America v. Earle

156 Or. 40 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1937

By providing for distribution to the holders of such participating policies of such sums of money out of the earnings of the company as in the judgment of its board of directors is proper, in violation of section 46-141, … In construing statutes containing the same terms as are written into our statute, the supreme court of the State of Ohio, in State ex rel. v. Conn, 110 Ohio St. 404 ( 144 N.

Abel v. Mack

131 Or. 586 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1930

In O'Brien v. … Co. v. Central Trust Co. et al.

Dalton v. East Portland

11 Or. 426 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1884

(Mumford, et al., v. The Pleasant Grove, 42 Ind., 203 .) … (Stingle v. Nevel, 9 Or., 65 .) Let a decree be entered accordingly.

State v. Cartwright

336 Or. 408 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 26, 2004

State v. Cartwright, 173 Or App 59 , 20 P3d 223 (2001). … Bell v.

Lydell v. First Bank

65 Or. 243 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 27, 1913

Co. v. Remick, 1 Or. 169 ; Lowenstein v. Meyer, 114 Ga. 709 ( 40 N. E. 726 ); Capron v. Strout, 11 Nev. 304 ; Flagstaff S. M. Co. v. Cullins, 104 U. S. 176 ( 26 L. Ed. 704 ); Warner v. Hudson R. R. R. Co., 5 How. Pr. … In opposition to the views herein announced, our attention is directed to the following cases: Hooker v. McAllister, 12 Wash. 46 ( 40 Pac. 617 ); Underwood v. Birdsell, 6 Mont. 142 ( 9 Pac. 922 ); Auld v.

State Ex Rel. O'Leary v. Jacobs

295 Or. 632 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1983

State v. Leathers, 271 Or 236, 240 , 531 P2d 901 (1975); State v. Cannon, 11 Or 312 , 2 P 191 (1884); Ex parte Lange, 19 Wall 163, 21 LEd 872 (1874); Oxman v. US, 148 F2d 750 (8th Cir 1945); People v. … See ORS 144.050 and State v. Cannon, supra.

In Re Parker

314 Or. 143 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1992

*145 PER CURIAM The Board of Bar Examiners (Board) recommends denial of applicant’s request to be admitted to the practice of law in Oregon. Applicant seeks admission notwithstanding the Board’s action. … In State ex rel v.

Way v. Patton

195 Or. 36 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1952

Art V, § 5. … The local executive board found them guilty and expelled them from membership. They appealed to the general executive board, which modified the sentence by imposing a fine and temporary suspension.