Case law

State v. Hines

94 Or. 607 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1920

This law was later amended to provide that any inspector employed by the sanitary board should have the right at any time to enter any slaughter-house or other place where cattle were killed,, to examine the same, *613 and … company or other common carrier to receive, for the purpose of * * transportation beyond the limits of this Territory, any hides that have not been inspected and tagged by a duly authorized inspector of the cattle sanitary board

Land Reclamation, Inc. v. Riverside Corporation

261 Or. 180 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1972

Wells, 228 Or 389, 395 , 365 P2d 505, 508 (1961) ; Smith v. Harris, 92 Or Adv Sh 1071, 1074, 484 P2d 1100 (1971); Blehm v. Ringering, 93 Or Adv Sh 497, 500, 488 P2d 798 (1971). ③ Caldwell et ux v. … Claussen, 44 Cal App 735, 187 P 140 (1919); Chamberlain v. Brown, 141 Iowa 540 , 120 NW 334, 337 (1909); Otting v. Gradsky, 294 Ky 779, 172 SW2d 554, 556 , 148 ALR 580 (1943).

Gould v. Deschutes County

367 Or. 427 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2020

This companion case to State v. … State v. Chapman, 298 Or App 604, 606-07, 448 P3d 721 (2019).

Brownstone Homes Condominium Ass'n v. Brownstone Forest Heights, LLC

358 Or. 26 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 8, 2015

Brown. Brian C. Hickman, Gordon & Polscer, LLC, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for respondent on review. With him on the briefs was Gregory A. Baird. … In Couey v.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Hubert

265 Or. 27 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1973

The Board of Governors found the accused not guilty of the charge and recommended that the complaint be dismissed. We agree with the trial committee’s finding that the accused was guilty of unprofessional conduct. … Brant, 242 Or 562 , 410 P2d 824 (1966); State ex rel Joseph v. Mannix, 133 Or 329 , 288 P 507 , rehearing denied 290 P 745 (1930).

Woody v. Waibel

276 Or. 189 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1976

v. … See also Justice Smith’s dissenting opinion in Powell v. Appeal Board of Michigan Emp. Sec. Com’n., 345 Mich 455 , 75 NW2d 875 , 886 (1956): "The test employed is one of economic reality.

Page Et Ux. v. City of Portland

178 Or. 632 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1945

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., supra; Miller v. Board of Public Works 195 Cal. 477 , 234 P. 381 , 38 A. L. R. 1479; 138 A. L. R. 500 note. … Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 274 U. S. 325 , 71 L. Ed. 1074 , 47 S. Ct. 594 ; Euclid v. Ambler, supra; Kroner v. City of Portland, supra; Metzenbaum on Law of Zoning 69.

State Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Bates

227 Or. 357 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 24, 1961

BROWN, Assistant Attorney General, its attorneys: “YOU AND EACH OP YOU will please take notice that the above named defendant, Walter E. … Purdy v. Winters’ Estate, 85 Or 188, 193 , 159 P 1091 , 166 P 536 . Similar holdings in the more recent cases include Columbia Auto Works v. Yates, 176 Or 295 , 156 P2d 561 ; Nichols v.

Bellikka v. Green

306 Or. 630 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1988

Cain v. Rijken, 300 Or 706 , 717 P2d 140 (1986); Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 , 588 P2d 1087 (1978). … Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598, 601 , 695 P2d 897 (1985); Brown v. Transcon Lines, supra.

Bean v. Tripp

99 Or. 216 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1921

Lead Pencil Co. v. Wolfe, 30 Fla. 360 (11 South. 488); Metzger v. Edson, 25 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 236 ( 55 N. Y. Supp. 61 ); Sing Sing First Nat. Bank. v. Chalmers, 144 N. Y. 432 ( 30 N. … J., and Johns and Brown, JJ., concur.

First State Bank v. Kendall Lumber Co.

107 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1923

Justice Wolverton, speaking for the court in Clemmensen v. … In State v.

Miller v. Portland

78 Or. 165 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1915

Co. v. … In State v. Jersey City, 58 N. J.

Finch v. Pacific Reduction & Chemical Mfg. Co.

113 Or. 670 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1925

BROWN, J. … Rep. 732); Volp v. Saylor, 42 Or. 546 ( 71 Pac. 980 ); Huffman v. Huffman, 47 Or. 610 ( 86 Pac. 593 , *675 114 Am. St. Rep. 943 ); Multnomah County v. Portland Cracker Co., 49 Or. 345 ( 90 Pac. 155 ); Stivers v.

Sherrett v. Portland

75 Or. 449 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1915

.” *456 We read in Section 379: “Upon the approval of said ordinance by the mayor, or if the same shall become valid without his approval, the auditor shall present to the executive board at its next regular meeting, a copy … Thereafter, the said executive board, without delay, shall give notice by publication, for not less than five successive days in the city official newspaper, inviting proposals for making said improvement.

Rennie v. Pozzi

294 Or. 334 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1982

See, e.g., Brown v. Brown, 43 Colo App 535, 608 P2d 840 , cert den (1980). To the extent the statute was intended to have this effect, it appears to be largely a codification of the common law. … See, e.g., Ricard v. Birch, 529 F2d 214, 216 (4th Cir 1975); Kiley v. Lubelsky, 315 F Supp 1025, 1028-1029 , (D SC 1970); Strickland v.

Nedry v. Herold

141 Or. 167 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1932

In Schmid v. … BEAN, C.J., BROWN, RAND, CAMPBELL and KELLY, JJ., concur. BELT, J., absent. *Page 172

Sweeney v. McLeod

15 Or. 330 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1887

(Clippinger v. Hep baugh, 5 Watts & S. 315 ; Woods v. McCann, 6 Dana, 366 ; Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. 16 How. 314 ; Harris v. Roofs, 10 Barb. 489 ; Rose v. Truax, 21 Barb. 361 ; Bryan v. … And to the like effect is Brown v. Brown, 34 Barb. 533 ; Cook v. Shipman, 24 Ill. 614 ; Mills v. Mills, 10 N. Y. 543 ; Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. 441 ; Woods v. McCann, 6 Dana, 366 ; Frost v.

Bank of California v. Young

123 Or. 95 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1927

BROWN, J. A draft such as the one drawn by the defendant in this case is a negotiable instrument. It is made so by the negotiable instrument statute of Oregon: Or. L., §7793. … Rep. 243); Brusegaard v. Ueland, 72 Minn. 283 ( 75 N. W. 228 ); National Bank of Commerce v. Bossemeyer, 101 Neb. 96, 102 ( 162 N. W. 503 , L. R. A. 1917E, 374); Walker & Brock v.

Salem Hospital v. Marion County

307 Or. 213 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1988

He was entitled to release after 15 days if the parole board had not suspended his parole. ORS 144.370. See West v. … Washington County, 244 Or 499 , 419 P2d 36 (1966); see also Bd. of Higher Educ. v. Wash. Co., 52 Or App 369 , 629 P2d 373 (1981); Rogue Valley Memorial Hosp. v.

Christie v. Bandon

82 Or. 481 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1917

So far as the control of the county road by the City of Bandon is concerned, the instant case is governed by Cole v. … Section 68 empowers the board of trustees to establish and alter the grade and improve any street or part thereof in the town; and by Section 101 the same sanction is given to the *485 act of the board in providing by ordinance