Case law

Black v. Employment Division

301 Or. 221 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1986

This is a companion case to Smith v. Employment Division, 301 Or 209 , 721 P2d 445 (1986). Claimant appealed an Employment Appeals Board (EAB) order denying unemployment compensation benefits. … The Court of Appeals is affirmed as modified; the case is remanded to the Board for issuance of an order not inconsistent with this opinion. [1] 1As we noted in Smith v.

McCargar & McKay v. Federal Securities Co.

134 Or. 342 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1930

The defense should have been made by a special plea setting up the facts: Overholt v. Dietz, 43 Or. 194 ( 72 P. 695 ). … Rossman and Brown, JJ., not sitting.

Roseburg Forest Products Co. v. Employment Division

313 Or. 301 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1992

The Employment Appeals Board (EAB) awarded unemployment compensation benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Roseburg Forest Products Co. v. Employment Div., 104 Or App 448 , 802 P2d 73 (1990). We affirm. … See, e.g., Labor Board v.

Akerson v. D. C. Bates & Sons, Inc.

180 Or. 224 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1946

Castonguay v. Acme Knitting Machine & Needle Co., 83 N. H. 1, 136 A. 702 ; Silverado S. S. Co. v. Prendergast, 31 F. (2d) 225; Warren v. Hayes, 74 N. H. 355, 68 A. 193 ; 3 C. J. S., Agency, § 264. … Co. v. Prendergast, supra, the plaintiff was invited on board ship by the captain, and while there was injured by falling through an open hatch.

Zorn v. Livesley

44 Or. 501 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1904

. *509 Justice Thayer in Page v. … Stephens, 38 Or. 512 ( 63 Pac. 760 , 64 Pac. 319 ); Crown Cycle Co. v. Brown, 39 Or. 285 ( 64 Pac. 451 ); Kiernan v. Kratz, 42 Or. 474 ( 69 Pac. 1027 , 70 Pac. 506 ). *510 6.

Fischer v. Bayer

108 Or. 311 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1922

The authorities on this point are collated in Toy v. Gong, 87 Or. 454 ( 170 Pac. 936 ). … Money for same to be turned over to me as trustee, to be disbursed by authorization of your board.”

Avery v. Ladd

26 Or. 579 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1895

Brown, 12 Gray, 233 ; Hade v. McVay, 31 Ohio St. 231 ; State Bank v. Bank of New Brunswick, 3 N. J. Eq. 266. … E. 172 ; Clarke v. Hawkins, 5 R. I. 219; Van Dyck v. McQuade, 85 N. Y. 617 . 2. In Northampton Bank v. Balliet, 8 Watts & S. 311 , 42 Am.

Joplin v. National Live Stock Ins.

61 Or. 544 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1912

L., it was the duty of plaintiffs to have immediately notified the State Board of Health or the State Veterinarian of the fact that the horse was infected with an incurable contagious disease, and it would have been the duty … Tripp v. Northwestern Live Stock Ins. Co., 91 Iowa 281 ( 59 N. W. 1 ). 2.

Weise v. Smith

3 Or. 445 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1869

(Brown v. Chadbourne, 31 Maine, — : 42 Maine, 558.) … (Davis v.

Stamos v. Portland Electric Power Co.

128 Or. 310 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1929

J. 1113, treating of the same subject matter, omits inevitable accident as one of the special defenses which must be pleaded: Shaw v. Hollenbach, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 1561 ( 55 S. W. 686 ), and Wilson v. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071452)

373 Or. 405 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 10, 2025

See Homestyle Direct, 354 Or at 265 (cit- ing Forelaws on Board v. Energy Fac. Siting Council¸ 306 Or 205, 214, 760 P2d 212 (1988)). … See, e.g., Forelaws on Board v. Energy Fac.

State v. Metschan

32 Or. 372 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1896

State, 49 Kan. 246 ( 30 Pac. 488 ; Buie v. Cunningham (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 801 ; King v. Commissioners’ Court (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 257 ; State v. Anderson, 5 Kan. 90 ; Graham v. … W. 291 ); Ship Channel Company v. Bruly, 45 Tex. 6 ; Board v. Texas, etc., Railway Company, 46 Tex. 316 .

Oregon-Columbia Chapter AGC v. ODOT (S071452)

373 Or. 405 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 10, 2025

See Homestyle Direct, 354 Or at 265 (cit- ing Forelaws on Board v. Energy Fac. Siting Council¸ 306 Or 205, 214, 760 P2d 212 (1988)). … See, e.g., Forelaws on Board v. Energy Fac.

State v. Swanson

119 Or. 522 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1926

They were not binding upon him in this litigation: Bradshaw v. Commonwealth, 10 Bush (73 Ky.), 576. … J., and Brown and Coshow, JJ., concur.

Application of Portland General Elec. Co.

277 Or. 447 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1977

There can be other justifications for considering on judicial review important statutory issues not first decided by the agency, see Board of Public Instruction of Taylor County, Fla. v. … Compare, e.g., Board of Medical Examiners v. Mintz, 233 Or 441 , 378 P2d 945 (1963) with Sun Ray Dairy v. OLCC, 16 Or App 63 , 517 P2d 289 (1973).

Jensen v. Gladden

231 Or. 141 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1962

In State v. … State v. Pirkey, supra, is, therefore, not applicable.

Manaudas v. Mann

14 Or. 450 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1887

(Blain v. Stewart, 2 Iowa, 378 .) The courts in this state have given it the same construction. In Musgrove v. … Brown, 15 N. Y. 354 .)

Rose City Co. v. Langloe

141 Or. 242 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1932

In Trutch v. … Justice Brown's decision in Bussone v. Marsh, supra, the power to dispose was conferred for the benefit of its recipient, the widow.

Lorentzen v. State Compensation Department

251 Or. 92 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1968

Defendants’ first contention relating to the scope of judicial review is disposed of by Coday v. Willamette Tug & Barge Co., recently decided, 250 Or 39 , 440 P2d 224 (1968). … There we held that under ORS 656.298(6) the trial court and this court are charged with the duty of maldng a de novo review of the record forwarded by the Board.

First Nat. Bk. v. Multnomah Lbr. Box Co.

125 Or. 598 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1928

Brown , 7 Or. 285 ; Crown Co. v. Cohn , 88 Or. 642 ( 172 P. 804 ); 5 C.J. 1218, §§ 332, 333; 2 Perry on Trusts (6 ed.), 1264, 1269, §§ 764-766. … See also extended notes to First Baptist Church v. American Board of Commissioners , Ann. Cas. 1916D, 404, said note beginning in page 410.)" 28 Ency. of Law (2 ed.), 1002, paragraph (C); Robinson v.