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. Farnam

82 Or. 211 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1916

Allen Brown testified that he stayed at the Gilliam house on the night of December 8th. … Brown went to bed about 10 o’clock on the night of the 8th, but was kept awake by a dislocated thumb until about 2 or 3 in the morning.

Mann v. W. A. Gordon Co.

77 Or. 457 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1915

We cannot agree, however, with this position, for it appears to us quite clear that the allegations filed by plaintiff are sufficient to give the court jurisdiction, and we think that the case of Smith v. … In the case of Markham, v. Loveland, 69 Or. 451 ( 138 Pac. 483 ), commenting upon this, Mr.

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).

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.

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.

Hamilton v. Hamilton Mammoth Mines, Inc.

110 Or. 546 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1924

Tooze v. Heighton, 79 Or. 545, 553 ( 156 Pac. 245 ); Heidel v. Shute, 86 Or. 210, 219 ( 167 Pac. 586 , 168 Pac. 298 ). 3. … Co. v. Bigelow, 203 Mass. 159 ( 89 N.

Grand Prize Hydraulic Mines v. Boswell

83 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1915

In Bloch v. … In Clark v.

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.

Amato v. FULLINGTON ET UX

213 Or. 71 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1958

In Brown v. … See the authorities discussed by the court in Brown v. Feldwert, supra.

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.

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.

Ex parte Steiner

68 Or. 218 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1913

Justice Prim in State v. … Dec. 100 ); Austin v. State, 71 Ga. 595 ; State v. Fisher, 53 Or. 38 ( 98 Pac. 713 ).

Ellis v. FALLERT

209 Or. 406 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1957

The plaintiff relies upon Cooney v. Mommaw, 109 F Supp 448 , and Brown v. Georgia Tennessee Coaches, Inc., 88 Ga App 519, 77 SE2d 24 . In neither case was a Workmen’s Compensation Act involved. … In Brown v.

Lynch v. Sable-Oberteuffer-Peterson, Inc.

122 Or. 597 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1927

Francis v. Bohart, 76 Or. 1, 5 ( 143 Pac. 920 , 147 Pac. 755 , L. R. A. 1916A, 922); McDaniel v. Chiaramonte, 61 Or. 403 ( 122 Pac. 33 ). … J., and Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

In Re Admission to the Oregon State Bar of Fine

303 Or. 314 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1987

A trial panel of the Disciplinary Board recommended that applicant’s request for admission to the Oregon State Bar be denied. … ORS 9.220(2)(b); see also Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 US 232 , 77 S Ct 752 , 1 L Ed 2d 796 (1957).

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.

Taylor v. Multnomah County

119 Or. 123 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1926

The board of county commissioners on its own motion has authority to submit to the voters of the county a proposition for the issuance of county bonds for permanent road construction at a special election called on the same … L., Norton v. Coos County, *126 113 Or. 618 ( 233 Pac. 864 ). The opinion in that case, written by Mr.

Pioneer Hardware Co. v. Farrin

55 Or. 590 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1910

Mayes v. Stephens, 38 Or. 512 ( 63 Pac. 760 : 64 Pac. 319 ) ; Crown Cycle Co. v. Brown, 39 Or. 285 ( 64 Pac. 451 ) ; Patterson v. Patterson, 40 Or. 560 ( 67 Pac. 664 ) ; Kiernan v. … Kratz, 42 Or. 474 ( 69 Pac. 1027 : 70 Pac. 506 ) ; Zorn v. Livesley, 44 Or. 501 ( 75 Pac. 1057 ) ; Holmes v. Wolfard, 47 Or. 93 ( 81 Pac. 819 ); Cooper v. Blair, 50 Or. 394 ( 92 Pac. 1074 ) ; Roots v.

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.