Case law

Solomon v. Kenner

121 Or. 407 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1927

See Schuler v. Israel, *413 120 U. S. 506 ( 30 L. Ed. 707, 708 , 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 648); note, 59 L. R. A. 389; Keene v. Smith, 44 Or. 525 ( 75 Pac. 1065 ). … J., and Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

Sink v. Allen

79 Or. 78 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1916

Moore’s fraud being shown, the burden of proof to show the good faith of Harbke was upon the plaintiff: Owens v. Snell, 29 Or. 483 ( 44 Pac. 827 ); Brown v. Feldwert, 46 Or. 363 ( 80 Pac. 414 ). 5. … erred in admitting evidence of fraud upon the part of Moore in obtaining the note before the defendant had shown that Harbke took it with notice of the defenses which defendant had against it, and the case of Dreilling v.

Central Oregon Irr. Co. v. Whited

76 Or. 255 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1914

Dean, 58 Or. 475 ( 115 Pac. 154 ); Micelli v. Andrus, 61 Or. 78, 89 ( 120 Pac. 737 ); Mendenhall v. … His report to the state land board was made June 2, 1904.

In Re Will of Hough

120 Or. 223 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1926

In Cheever v. … J., and Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

Sharp v. McCargar

114 Or. 435 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1925

As quoted in Freese v. Pavloski et al., 39 R. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Weatherspoon v. Stackland

127 Or. 450 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1928

W. 581 ); Salter v. Jennings Furniture Co., 144 Miss. 194 ( 109 South. 704 ); 38 Cyc. 1904. Counsel for defendant relies on Fiore v. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Tabor v. Coin Machine Mfg. Co.

85 Or. 194 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1917

These instructions set out are correct in their statement of law, so far as they refer to assumption of risk, as. the act of 1910 has abrogated that defense: Nelson *198 v. Brown & McCabe, 81 Or. 472 ( 159 Pac. 1163 ). … Co., 69 Or. 18, 25 ( 136 Pac. 832 ); Susznik v. Alger Logging Co., 76 Or. 189 ( 147 Pac. 922 ).

State v. Savage

96 Or. 53 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1919

Brown, contra. Department 2. … . — For the reasons given in the original opinion, as well as those set forth in State v. *66 Blanchard, post, p. -79 ( 189 Pac. 421 ), this day decided, we adhere to our former opinion, and the petition for rehearing is

State v. Douglas County Road Co.

10 Or. 198 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1882

(The State v. Brown, 5 R. I., 6.) The district attorney is the law officer of the state, within the limits of his district, with the powers, in the absence of statutory regulation, of the attorney general at common law. … (State v. McConnell, 3 Lea., [Tenn.,] 339; Commonwealth v. Union Insurance Co., 5 Mass., 232 ; The People v. Attorney General, 22 Barb., 117 ; The People v. Tobacco Co., 42 How. Pr., 162 ; The People v.

McAleny v. Max J. Kuney Co.

Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2001

McALENY, Petitioner on Review, v. MAX J. KUNEY CO., and SAIF CORPORATION, Respondent on Review. … The case is remanded to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings in light of this court's decision in Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc , 331 Or 178 , 11 P3d 1286 (2000).

In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Tomlinson

231 Or. 636 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1962

We have reviewed the file and concur in the report of the Board of Governors. … State v. Mannix, 133 Or 329 , 288 P 507 , 290 P 745 . Disbarment would not be an excessive penalty. In re William E. Koken, 198 Or 659 , 258 P2d 779 ; In re Koken, 214 Or 357 , 329 P2d 894 .

Simpson v. SISTERS OF CHARITY OF PROVIDENCE, ETC.

284 Or. 547 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1978

In Piehl v. … Barrell v. Brown, 261 Or 463, 472 , 495 P2d 733 (1972).

Clackamas Adjustment Co. v. Hight

125 Or. 343 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1928

BROWN, J. The appellant assigns error of the court in refusing to direct a verdict for plaintiff, and in refusing to grant a new trial. … In the case of Bredemeier v.

Rall Et Ux. v. Purcell Et Ux.

131 Or. 19 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1929

The language of this provision is almost identical with the provision which was considered by this court in Abraham v. Abbott, 8 Or. 53 , where it was held by Mr. … Brown and Belt, JJ., did not participate in this opinion.

Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc.

356 Or. 577 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 26, 2014

The case is remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings. ______________ *  Judicial review from Workers’ Compensation Board. 254 Or App 466, 295 P3d 660 (2013). 578 … The case is remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

State v. Johnson

232 Or. 118 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1962

State v. Chinn, 231 Or 259 , 373 P2d 392 . A brown bottle about ten inches high, and full of white pills, was seized by officers when they called upon Johnson to arrest him for a violation of a city ordinance. … State v. Chinn, supra.

Peterson v. Standard Oil Co.

55 Or. 511 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1910

Thus, Swayne, J., in Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 , ( 23 L. Ed. 200 ), says: ‘Facts of universal notoriety need not be proved.’ Com-stock, J., in Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. … The expression of Brown, J., in Hunter v. Railroad Co., 116 N. Y. 615 , 621 ( 23 N. E. 10 : 6 L. R.

Kuhns v. State Tax Commission

223 Or. 547 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1960

“This Certificate is non-interest bearing except at option of Board of Directors of the Weston Grain Growers, Inc., and is redeemable at par at the option of said Board of Directors at the time and in the manner as provided … Such cases as Harrison v. Schaffner, 312 US 579 , 61 S Ct 759 , 85 L ed 1055; Lucas v. Earl, 281 US 111 , 50 S Ct 241 , 74 L ed 731; Helvering *556 v.

Nault v. Palmer

96 Or. 538 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1920

Tt was' competent, therefore, for the water board on proper petition, as is admitted, to examine and determine the rights and priorities of all users of that water system, including the creeks mentioned. … In Hall v. Dunn, 52 Or. 475 ( 97 Pac. 811 , 25 L. R. A. (N.

In Re Patterson

213 Or. 398 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 1958

State Bar of California, No. 5, October Term, 1956,-US-, 1 L ed 2d 810, 77 S Ct-; and Schware v. Board of Education of New Mexico, No. 92, decided May 6, 1957, — US-, 1 L ed 2d 796, 77 S Ct-. … Konigsberg v. State Board of California involved facts in many respects unlike those in the Schware case. Konigsberg had passed , the bar examination.