Case law

Huber v. Multnomah County

230 Or. 146 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1962

The landowner was not satisfied with the report of the viewers and petitioned the Board of County Commissioners for additional damages. Additional damages were awarded. … (See Sherrick v. Landstrom, 73 Adv Sh 1033, 229 Or 415 , 367 P2d 432 .) The brief is also defective in other particulars.

West v. Wilson

136 Or. 262 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1931

This was not a mistake but an intentional overstatement: Nicolai v. Van Fridagh, 23 Or. 149 (31 P. 288); Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Delahunt, 36 Or. 402 ( 51 P. 649 , 60 P. 1 ); Lewis v. … J., Brown and Rand, JJ., concur.

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.

Campbell v. City of Portland

204 Or. 654 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1955

Brown, City Attorney, and David R. Williams and E. Wayne Cordes, Deputy City Attorneys, all of Portland, contra. Respondents' motion to strike bill of exceptions allowed September 15, 1953. … Brown and David R. Williams, Portland. Burl L. Green, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Green, Richardson & Green, Portland.

Salene v. Isherwood

74 Or. 35 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1914

Brown, 37 Or. 588 ( 61 Pac. 1024 ); Krebs Hop Co. v. Livesley, 55 Or. 227 ( 104 Pac. 3 ), and cases therein mentioned. … Rep. 145 ); Wilson v. Wilson, 26 Or. 257 ( 38 Pac. 185 ); Froebrich v. Lane, 45 Or. 13 ( 76 Pac. 351 , 106 Am. St. Rep. 634 ); Wills v. Nehalem, 52 Or. 70 ( 96 Pac. 528 ). 3.

Tuel v. Gladden

234 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1963

He could have been paroled at any time the Board of Parole determined him to be fit for parole. … State v. Hicks, supra, and State v. Smith, 128 Or 515, 525-526 , 273 P 323 , specifically held to the contrary. State v.

In re Northcutt

81 Or. 646 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 25, 1915

Chief Justice Wolverton, in Faling v. Multnomah County, 46 Or. 460 ( 80 Pac. 1009 ): “The policy of the law is apparent. … Carson & Brown, with an oral argument by Mr. John A. Carson.

State Ex Rel. Pegan v. American Surety Co.

137 Or. 394 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1931

*401 BROWN, J. … Trojan Powder Co. *404 v. Johnson Contract Co. et al., 120 Or. 633 ( 253 P. 520 ); State ex rel. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., supra; State ex rel. Sinclair Provision Co. v.

Loibl v. Niemi

214 Or. 172 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1958

Tuite v. Union Pacific Stages, 204 Or 565, 591 , 284 P2d 333 ; Hall v. Brown, 102 Or 389, 395 , 202 P 719 ; Leonard v. Southern Pacific Co., 21 Or 555, 565 , 28 P 887 , 15 LRA 221. … Hammons v. Schrunk, 209 Or 127, 137 , 305 P2d 405 ; Tuite v. Union Pacific Stages, supra; Hall v. Brown, supra; Leonard v. Southern Pacific Co., supra.

Manning v. Klippel

9 Or. 367 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1881

The case of Falk v. The Board of Commissioners of Monroe County, 46 Ind., 150 , affirming the opinion of Worden, C. J., in Wallace v. … In Kerrigan v.

Caspary v. City of Portland

19 Or. 496 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1890

Tn Morrison v. … So in Brown v. Inhab. of Vinalhaven, 65 Me. 402 , 20 Am.

State v. Baker

23 Or. 441 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1893

Ev. § 31; Brown v. Com. 76 Pa. St. 319; Mason v. The State, 42 Ala. 532 ; Long v. State, 11 Tex. App. 381; Jones v. State, 14 Tex. App. 85; House v. State, 16 Tex. App. 25; Heath v. Com. 1 Rob. (Va.) 735. … Rep. 246); Alger v. Thompson, 1 Allen, 453 ; State v. Lantz, 23 Kans. 728 ( 33 Am. Rep. 215 ).

Frazee v. Brazda

239 Or. 624 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1965

Brigham v. Southern Pacific Co., 237 Or 120, 122 , 390 P2d 669 (1964); Warner v. Maus, 209 Or 529, 535 , 304 P2d 423 (1957); O’Shea v. Jewel Tea Co., 233 F2d 530, 532 (7th Cir 1956); Fahey v. … BROWN ***** “Q * * * The first time you saw him was when your attention was attracted by his yelling, is that right? “A Yes, sir. “Q And then when you looked up what did you see? “A I saw the pedestrian in front of me.

Wilkes v. Zurlinden

325 Or. 489 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1997

The case is remanded to the *490 Court of Appeals for further consideration in the light of Anderson v. Jensen Racing, Inc., 324 Or 570 , 931 P2d 763 (1997) and Domingo v. Anderson, 325 Or 385 , 938 P2d 206 (1997).

Pullen v. Eugene

77 Or. 320 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1915

S.) 291); Taylor v. Taylor, 61 Or. 257 ( 121 Pac. 431, 964 ); Sullivan v. Wakefield, 65 Or. 528 ( 133 Pac. 641 ); L. C. Smith & Bros. Typewriter Co. v. McGeorge, 72 Or. 523 ( 143 Pac. 905 ); Frederick & Nelson v. … v.

Nelson v. Hansen

278 Or. 571 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1977

Brown, 127 Or 551, 558 , 272 P 914 ; American Surety Co. v. Hattrem, supra, at page 365; Crocker v. … Brown, supra, at page 560; Blackabee v.

Foundation of Human Understanding v. Department of Revenue

301 Or. 254 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1986

In Benton Co. v. … Church v.

Kallunki v. City of Astoria

109 Or. 363 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1923

The case comes clearly within the rule adopted by this court in Simon v. Trummer, 61 Or. 496 ( 123 Pac. 60 ), which is again followed in Emery v. … Brown, 63 Or. 264 ( 127 Pac. 682 ), in which we called attention to the case of Kelley v. Pike, 17 Or. 330 ( 20 Pac. 685 ), which also supports respondent’s contention.

State v. Estlick

269 Or. 75 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1974

On occasion this court has made statements that what is now OES 45.590 restates the common law: State v. Hunsaker, 16 Or 497, 499 , 19 P 605 (1888); *78 State v. … This reasoning is stated in Vause v.

Lakson v. Lakson

124 Or. 219 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1928

See Hawley v. Hawley, 101 Or. 649 ( 199 Pac. 589 ), and authorities there cited. … Bean, Belt and Brown, JJ., concur.