Case law

Division No. 757 of the Amalgamated Transit Union v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation

299 Or. 585 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1985

continue to abide by and comply with all the terms and conditions of the existing collective bargaining agreement with Local 757 until such time as a final award is issued for a new collective bargaining agreement by the board … Louisiana-Pacific v. Lumber and Sawmill Workers, 296 Or 537 , 679 P2d 289 (1984).

Fairbanks v. Bureau of Labor and Industries

323 Or. 88 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1996

M.T., 321 Or 419, 426 , 899 P2d 1192 (1995) (citing Smith v. … , and the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision).

Stark v. State Industrial Accident Commission

103 Or. 80 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1922

Co. v. Industrial Acc. Board, 52 Mont. 6 ( 155 Pac. 268 , L. R. A. 1916D, 628). In Peet v. Mills, 76 Wash. 437, 439 ( 136 Pac. 685 , Ann. Cas. 1915D, 154, L. R. A. *93 1916A, 358, Workmen’s Compensation Acts, C. J. … J., and Brown and McCourt, JJ., concur.

Eli Bridge Co. v. Dave Lachman

124 Or. 592 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1928

S.) 940); Knowles Loom Works v. Vacher, 57 N. J. Law, 490 ( 31 Atl. 306 , 33 L. R. A. 305); Beggs v. Bartels, 73 Conn. 132 ( 46 Atl. 874 , 84 Am. St. Rep. 152 ); Hervey v. R. I. *597 Locomotive Works, 93 U. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Lange v. Allen

120 Or. 96 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1926

In Sutherlin v. … Smith, 81 Or. 556 ( 160 Pac. 517 ); Rosenberg Suit & Coat Co. v. General Acc. Fire Assur. Corp., 98 Or. 118 ( 193 Pac. 441 ); Board *107 man v. Insurance Co. of Pa., 84 Or. 60 ( 164 Pac. 558 ); Peninsula Lum. Co. v.

Miller v. Medford National Bank

115 Or. 366 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1925

Baber v. Caples, supra. … J., and Burnett and Brown, JJ., concur.

Wells v. Morrison

121 Or. 604 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1927

*606 BROWN, J. This appeal raises but one principal question. That question involves tbe evidence adduced by plaintiff, to tbe effect that tbe defendants were protected by indemnity insurance. … Cas. 1916E, 769); Vasquez v. Pettit, 74 Or. 496 ( 145 Pac. 1066 , Ann. Cas. 1917A, 439); Walling v. Portland Gas & Coke Co., 75 Or. 495 (147 Pac. 399); Sanders v. Taber, 79 Or. 522 ( 155 Pac. 1194 ); Jones v.

Griffa v. Monmouth

95 Or. 433 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1920

To the same effect are, Considine v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 165 Mass. 462 ( 43 N. E. 201 ); Smalley v. Ashland Brown-Stone Co., 114 Mich. 104 ( 72 N. W. 29 ); Terrell v. City of Paducah et al., 122 Ky. 331 ( 92 S. … S.) 289); Brace v. Solner, 1 Alaska, 361 ; Carter Webster & Co. v. United States, 143 Fed. 256 ( 74 C. C. A. 394 ), and many other cases.

State v. Lehman

130 Or. 132 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1929

In support of State v. Stewart, supra, see the comparatively recent case of Ryan v. State, 168 Wis. 14 ( 168 N. W. 566 ). A similar statute was under consideration in State v. Robinson, 14 Minn. 447 . … Brown, J., absent.

McDowell v. Parry

45 Or. 99 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1904

Brown, as sheriff, in pursuance thereof, levied on the six lots, and advertised them for sale, whereupon this suit was commenced, resulting in a decree as hereinbefore stated. … Justice Thayer in Schneider v. Sears, 13 Or. 69 ( 8 Pac. 841 ), “are statutory, and, unless the statute is strictly pursued, no right is acquired under them.”

Wills v. Nehalem Coal Co.

52 Or. 70 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1908

Stevenson, 63 Pa. 95 ; Simons v. Vul-Can Oil & M. Co. 61 Pa. 202 ( 100 Am. Dec. 628 ) ; Getty v. Devlin, 54 N. Y. 403 ; Getty v. Devlin, 70 N. Y. 504 ; Chandler v. Bacon (C. C.), 30 Fed. 538 ; Atwool v. … Co. v. Eastman, 34 N. H. 124; Blodgett v. Morrill, 20 Vt. 509 .

Fromme v. Lang & Co.

131 Or. 501 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1929

Perkins, 21 Or. 189 ; Nickum v. Gaston, 24 Or. 380 ( 33 P. 671 ); Pitts v. Crane, 114 Or. 593 ( 236 P. 475 ). … Brown, J., did not participate in this opinion.

Miami Quarry Co. v. Seaborg Packing Co.

103 Or. 362 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1922

Many authoritative and approved definitions of proximate cause, as that term is understood in the law of negligence, are quoted in the cases of Brown v. Oregon Wash. R. & N. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Dose v. Chas. H. Lilly Co.

132 Or. 533 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1930

*536 BROWN, J. … The foregoing instruction is supported by the facts, and, in view thereof, is a correct statement of the law: Rayburn v. Davisson, 22 Or. 242 ( 29 P. 738 ); Dillard v.

Maupin Warehouse Co. v. Fleming

121 Or. 531 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1927

*534 BROWN, J. … To similar effect are Thompson v. Peck, 115 Ind. 512 ( 18 N. E. 16 , 1 L. R. A. 201); Coffin v. Hollister, 27 N. Y. St. Rep. 637 (7 N. Y. Supp. *537 734); Kelsey v. Harrison, 29 Kan. 143 ; Ayers v.

Peterson v. Dose

124 Or. 30 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1928

BROWN, J. … As to the effect of this averment, see the case of Johnson v.

Gentner v. Kern

164 Or. 645 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1940

Boire v. Yamhill County, 53 Or. 36 , 98 P. 520 . They also contend that if the proceedings were valid the road never became anything more than a paper road; that is, that no use whatever was made of it. … As stated in Hyde v. Peirce, 147 Or. 5 , 31 P. (2d) 755 , that method of indication imparts no knowledge to this court when it examines the record.

Union Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Getty

135 Or. 565 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1930

Mackenzie, 33 Or. 209, 214 ( 52 P. 1046 ); Flanagan Estate v. Great Cent. Land Co., 45 Or. 335, 342-344 ( 77 P. 485 ); Maffet v. Or. & Cal. R. Co., 46 Or. 443, 451, 452 ( 80 P. 489 ). … Brown, Belt and Kelly, JJ., concur.

Officer v. Cummings

127 Or. 320 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1928

Paris (Idaho), 267 Pac. 232 ; Gaulden v. Ramsey, 123 Miss. 1 ( 85 South. 109 ); Carter v. Carter, 36 Mich. 207 ; Gulbranson v. Thompson, 63 Utah, 115 ( 222 Pac. 590 ); Sibley v. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Ramsey v. Ogden

23 Or. 347 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1893

In French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 445 ( 21 Am. … And it is said that “it cannot be denied that this doctrine is in accordance with the strict letter of the statute, and it may be equally within its spirit and intent. ” The case is different where, as in Brown v.