Case law

Bowen v. Spaulding

63 Or. 392 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1912

Low v. Schaffer, 24 Or. 239 ( 23 Pac. 678 ) ; North Powder Milling Co. v. Coughanour, 34 Or. 9 ( 54 Pac. 223 ) ; Brown v. Baker, 39 Or. 66 ( 65 Pac. 799 : 66 Pac. 193 ) ; Davis v. … Within the principles announced in Porter v. Pettengill, 57 Or. 247 ( 110 Pac. 393 ); Andrews v. Donnelly, 59 Or. 138 ( 116 Pac. 569 ); and Hedges 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.

ESCO Corp. v. Department of Revenue

307 Or. 639 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 31, 1989

See Uihlein v. Albertson’s, Inc., 282 Or 631, 634 , 580 P2d 1014 (1978). … If they fail to go to the board, in other words.” Senate Committee on Revenue, March 10,1983, tape 52, side a (emphasis added).

State v. Carlson

311 Or. 201 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1991

Cleary, Strong, Brown & Mostellar, supra, at 17. … State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 358-59 , 800 P2d 259 (1990); State v. Madison, 290 Or 573, 580 , 624 P2d 599 (1981). The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.

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.

Schairer v. Johnson

128 Or. 409 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1929

BROWN, J. Plaintiff and defendant are residents of Astoria. On the day of the injury, the defendant invited the plaintiff and others to accompany him on a drive to Seaside. … Cas. 1917D, 496); Marshall v. Olson, 102 Or. 502 ( 202 Pac. 736 ); Murphy v. Hawthorne, 117 Or. 319 ( 244 Pac. 79 , 44 A. L. R. 1397). 5.

Konigsberger v. Harvey

12 Or. 286 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 19, 1885

In Watson v. Christie, 2 Bos. & P. 223, decided nearly a century ago, the same principle was recognized. That was a case of trespass for assaulting and beating the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded not guilty. … After the proof was made of the beating, the defendant offered to show that it was given by way of punishment for misbehavior on board the ship, and it was insisted that the conduct of the defendant at the time of the assault

Plummer v. Donald M. Drake Co.

212 Or. 430 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1958

The others are: Johnson v. Timber Structures, Inc., 203 Or 670 , 281 P2d 723 ; Kosmecki v. Portland Stevedoring Co., 190 Or 85 , 223 P2d 1035 ; Atkinson v. Fairview Dairy Farms, supra; Brown v. … That is the necessary effect of Inwall v. Transpacific Lumber Co., Brown v. Underwood Lumber Co., Atkinson v. Fairview Dairy Farms, all supra.

Phil A. Livesley Co. v. Russ

296 Or. 25 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1983

The Workers’ Compensation Board agreed. … Clark v. U.S.

Kamm v. Normand

50 Or. 9 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1907

v. … Court of *12 Maine, in Brown v. Chadbourne, 31 Me. 9 ( 1 Am.

Stanley v. Luse

36 Or. 25 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1899

Justice Miller, in Twin Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury, 91 U. … In further support of the doctrine, see Gardner v. Butler, 30 N. J. Eq. 702 ; Stewart v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. 38 N. J. Law, 505 ; Kitchen v. St. Louis K. C. & N. Ry. Co. 69 Mo. 224 .

Hill Military Academy v. City of Portland

152 Or. 272 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1935

Multnomah County, 126 Or. 417, 426 ( 270 P. 502 ); Brown v. Silverton, 97 Or. 441 (190P. 971). … The council, by its ordinance, did not declare the armory building to be a nuisance: Morton v. Wessinger, 58 Or. 80, 85 ( 118 P. 7 ); Brown v. Silverton, supra; 43 C. J. 574, § 921.

Hiestand v. Wolfard

272 Or. 222 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1975

We quote from Lee v. … Rich v. Tite-Knot Pine Mill, 245 Or 185, 198 , 421 P2d 370 (1966); Parmentier v. Ransom, 179 Or 17, 21 , 169 P2d 883 (1946); Wemett v. Mount, 134 Or 305, 313 , 292 P 93 (1930).

In Re Will of Hough

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

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

Liquidators v. Clifton

132 Or. 448 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1930

An exhaustive review of the authorities in this jurisdiction and elsewhere is made in the recent cases of Federal Securities Co. v. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Moses v. Meier

148 Or. 185 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 11, 1934

Citing, Municipal Security Co. v. Baker County, 33 Or. 338 ( 54 P. 174 ); Eaton v. … Also see the analogous cases of California Toll Bridge Authority v. Kelly, 218 Cal. 7 ( 21 P. (2d) 425 ); Briggs v. Greenville County, 137 S. C. 288 ( 135 S. E. 153 ); Klein et al. v.

State v. Brook

112 Or. 59 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1924

As to possession, it was held in State v. Williams, 102 Or. 305 ( 202 Pac. 428 ), following State v. … J., and Brown, J., concur.

In the Matter of Constitutionality of Chapter 280, Or. Laws 1975

276 Or. 135 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1976

Howlett, 25 Ill2d 128, 182 NE2d 673, 676 (1962); Book v. State Office Bldg. Comm., 238 Ind 120, 149 NE2d 273, 281-82 (1958); State ex rel Fatzer v. Armory Board, 174 Kan 369, 256 P2d 143, 151-52 (1953); Walinske v. … Cheney, 234 Ark 503 , 352 SW2d 943 (1962); Book v. State Office Bldg. Comm., 238 Ind 120, 149 NE2d 273, 282-83 (1958); State ex rel Fatzer v. Armory Board, 174 Kan 369, 256 P2d 143, 150-51 (1953); Preston v.

Columbia Steel Castings Co. v. City of Portland

314 Or. 424 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1992

The decision of the Land Use Board of Appeals is reversed in part. … The Goal and its requirements are quoted in part and discussed further in 1000 Friends of Oregon v.

Davis v. Wasco Intermediate Education District

286 Or. 261 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 1979

As we stated in Gilbertson v. … See, e.g., Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 (1972). We also need not reach the issue of waiver.