Case law

Perkins v. McCullough

36 Or. 146 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1899

material issue of the complaint, and every fair and legitimate inference of fact deducible therefrom, but asserting that the jury, from a consideration thereof, would not be authorized to find a verdict for the plaintiff: Brown … v.

State v. Maddock

58 Or. 542 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 16, 1911

The case of State v. McElrath, 49 Or. 294 ( 89 Pac. 803 ), is decisive of nearly all the questions involved here. 1. … Co. v. Hand, 7 Kan. 280 ; Labadie v. Dean, 47 Tex. 90, 100 ; De Leon v. Barrett, 22 S. C. 412; People v. Central City Bank, 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 412. Section 978, L. O.

Southern Pacific Transporation Co. v. School District No. 40

291 Or. 867 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1981

This case is closely related to Espinosa v. Southern Pacific Trans., 291 Or 853 , 635 P2d 638 (1981), also decided today by this court. … In so arguing, SP relied on our case of Vendrell v. School District 26C, et al, 226 Or 263 , 360 P2d 282 (1961).

Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. Don Whitaker Logging, Inc.

329 Or. 256 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 5, 1999

Abu-Adas v. Employment Dept., 325 Or 480, 485 , 940 P2d 1219 (1997); see also PGE v. … . & L. v. OSHRC, 737 F2d 350, 358 (3d Cir 1984); Ocean Electric Corp. v.

Taggart v. Hunter

78 Or. 139 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1915

It, is also unnecessary if no price has been named in the contract, or the property has been sold for what it is reasonably worth: 3 Jones Ev., § 429; Hoadly v. McLaine, 10 Bing. 482; Browne, Stat. … Taggart could not, in the nature of affairs, agree to sell the land: Brown, Stat. Frauds, § 353a.

Kosciolek v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co.

81 Or. 517 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1916

S.) 1024); Brown v. Kistelman, 177 Ind. 692 ( 98 N. E. 631 , 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 236); Goldman v. Cohen, 30 Misc. Rep. 336 ( 63 N. Y. Supp. 459 ); Stout v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co., 172 Mo. App. 113 ( 157 S. … W. 1019 ); Gambino v. Manufacturers’ Coal & Coke Co., 175 Mo. App. 653 ( 158 S. W. 77 ); Patelski v. Snyder, 179 Ill. App. 24 ; Marri v. Stanford St. Ry. Co., 84 Conn. 9 ( 78 Atl. 582 , Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1120, 33 L. R.

Norwood v. Eastern Oregon Land Co.

139 Or. 25 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1931

In the injunction suit this court, Norwood v. … Gust v.

Long v. Smith Hotel Co.

115 Or. 306 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1925

In Manley v. Smith, 88 Or. 176, 190 ( 171 Pac. 897, 901 ), this court, after referring to the case of Powers v. … Brown v. Feldwert (syl.), 46 Or. 363 ( 80 Pac. 414 ). *315 To the same effect is Foster v. University Lumber Co., 65 Or. 46 ( 131 Pac. 736 ).

Schlussel v. Hays

89 Or. 463 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1918

Jur. (3 ed.), §§ 956 and 959; Gilmore v. Burch, 7 Or. 374, 384 ( 33 Am. Rep. 710 ); Jenkins v. Jenkins, 66 Or. 12, 17 ( 132 Pac. 542 ); Clough v. Dawson, 69 Or. 52, 60 ( 133 Pac. 345 , 138 Pac. 233 ); Baber v. … Justice Mc-Camant in Tucker v.

Cottrell v. EBI Companies

304 Or. 187 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1987

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the referee’s decision, as did a majority of the Court of Appeals panel below. Cottrell v. EBI Companies, *190 84 Or App 472 , 734 P2d 383 (1987). … In *192 Wadsworth v.

WEBER COASTAL BELLS LTD. PARTNERS v. Metro

351 Or. 548 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2012

J. 40 41 The opinion of the Land Use Board of Appeals is affirmed, and the land use final 42 order of Metro is affirmed in part and remanded in part, consistent with the opinion of the 43 Land Use Board of Appeals … Partners v. Metro, ___ Or LUBA ___, ___ (LUBA Nos. 2011-080, 2011-081, 2011-082, and 2011-083, Oct 26, 2011) (slip op at 11).

State v. Hutcheson

251 Or. 589 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1968

To the same effect, see People v. … In Sweden v.

Reed v. Western Union Tel. Co.

70 Or. 273 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1914

Appellant argues that every question must be submitted to the jury under Article I, Section 17, of the Constitution, relying on the case of Shobert v. May, 40 Or. 68 ( 66 Pac. 466 , 91 Am. St. Rep. 453 , 55 L. R. … We think the facts alleged in this case bring it within the law of 1911 quoted, and it was error to grant a nonsuit: See Schulte v. Pacific Paper Co., 67 Or. 334 ( 135 Pac. *278 527 ), and Browning v.

State v. Bellek

316 Or. 654 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1993

State v. Bellek, 114 Or App 17, 20 , 834 P2d 458 (1992). For the reasons stated in State v. … case to the circuit court with directions to delete the sentence of “imprisonment for life” and impose, instead, a judgment that provides for post-prison supervision “for the remainder of the [defendant’s] life, unless the Board

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Sanai

360 Or. 497 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 27, 2016

Sanai v. Washington State Bar Association Disciplinary Board, ___ US ___ 134 S Ct 1324, 188 L Ed 307 (2014). … In Pratt v.

Small v. Lutz

34 Or. 131 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1899

Dulce of Rutland, 6 Brown, Parl. … St. 250 ( 16 Atl. 625 ); Reynes v. Dumont, 130 U. S. 354, 395 (9 Sup. Ct. 486); Sullivan v. Portland R. R. Co., 94 U. S. 806 ; Derry v. Ross, 5 Colo. 295 . The Supreme Court of the United States in Hipp v. Babin, 60 U.

Johnson v. Johnson

131 Or. 235 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1929

In order to confer jurisdiction on an appellate court the procedure defined in the statute must be followed: La Grande v. Municipal Court , 120 Or. 109 , 115 ( 251 P. 308 ); Baskin v. … We learn from the briefs that Emma Murphy Brown was chosen by agreement to report the testimony in the instant case. She has certified to the evidence, but she was not an official reporter.

Dunn v. SAIF Corp.

306 Or. 8 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1988

I respectfully dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Weyerhaeuser Company v. Miller, 306 Or 1 , 760 P2d 1317 (1988). Lent, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

State v. Williams

117 Or. 238 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1925

Skidmore v. Commonwealth, 204 Ky. 451 ( 264 S. W. 1053 ); Sizemore v. Commonwealth, 202 Ky. 273 ( 259 S. W. 337 .)” The question at bar was answered in Braseale v. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Brady v. Oregon Lumber Co.

117 Or. 188 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1925

A. 308); Bryant v. Fissell, 84 N. J. L. 72 ( 86 Atl. 458 , 3 N. C. C. A. 585); Eugene Dietzen Co. v. Industrial Board, 279 Ill. 11, 18 ( 116 N. E. 684 , Ann. Cas. 1918B, 764, 14 N. C. C. A. 125).” See, also, Putnam v. … The active part of the camp was its boarding-house, and, as an inducement to the men to remain, board was reduced from $1.20 to .50 per day.