Case law

State v. Mellenberger

163 Or. 233 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1939

The parties agree that the operation of this board constituted a violation of our laws and cite $ 14-801, Oregon Code 1930. The board had provision for 1440 punches. Its patrons paid 10 cents for each play. … A punch forced from the board a slip of paper bearing a number.

Fox v. Title & Trust Co.

129 Or. 530 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1929

As said in Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. Hannay & Co., 2 *534 K. … Brown, J., did not participate in this opinion.

Nation v. Gueffroy

172 Or. 673 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1943

During the past two years he has been serving as resident examiner for the selective service board in Marion county, Oregon. … Lehman v. Knott, 100 Or. 59 , 196 P. 476 ; Wemett v. Mount, 134 Or. 305 , 292 P. 93 . There was no expert medical witness offered by plaintiff to support his charge of negligence.

Smith v. Little

188 Or. 682 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1950

Gall v. Gall, 27 App. Div. 173 , 50 N. Y. S. 563; Robinson v. Raynor, 28 N. Y. 494 ; Shakespeare v. Markham, 10 Hun. (N. Y.) 311, affirmed 72 N. Y. 400 ; Miller v. Lash, 85 N. C. 51 , 39 Am. Rep. 678 . … Pl. & Pr. 791; Berry v. State, 10 Ga. 511 . * * * ” State v. Hill, 39 Or. 90, 94 , 65 P. 518 .

Annereau v. Ewauna Box Co.

176 Or. 509 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1945

W. 64 ; Western Grain & Sugar Products Co. v. Pillsbury, 173 Cal. 135 , 159 P. 423 ; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Central R. R., 74 Or. 144 , 144 P. 417 ; Sullivan v. … Merriam v. Hamilton, 64 Or. 476 , 130 P. 406 ; Goldfoot v Lofgren, supra; Sullivan v. Mountain States Power Co., supra; Abbott v. Portland Trust & Savings Bank, 160 Or. 699 , 86 P. (2d) 962 ; McKay v. St. Ind. Acc.

North Pacific Lumbering & Manufacturing Co. v. East Portland

14 Or. 3 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1886

The board of trustees is then required to declare the same by ordinance, and to direct its clerk to enter a statement thereof in the docket ' of city liens. … That was the case in Frush v. City of East Portland, 6 Oregon, 281.

Casto v. Hansen

123 Or. 20 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1927

W. 999 ; Brown v. Chambers, 65 Pa. St. 373. Ordinarily, whether due care was exercised in this regard would be a question of fact for the jury. … The above instruction given verbatim, was approved by this court in Johnson v. Underwood et al., *27 102 Or. 680 ( 203 Pac. 879 ). It was also given and approved in Barnes v. Barnett, 184 Iowa, 936 ( 169 N.

Myers v. Hatler

121 Or. 332 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1927

M. 403 ( 94 Pac. 1014 ); Johnson v. Williams, 51 N. Y. St. 805 ( 22 N. Y. Supp. 247 ); Ray v. Pease, 95 Ga. 153 ( 22 S. E. 190 ); Thompson on Real Property, § 3081. As stated in Cornett v. Creech et al., 30 Ky. … J., and Brown and Coshow, JJ., concur.

In Re Davenport for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

114 Or. 650 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1925

In Territory v. Board of Commissioners of Bernalillo County, 13 N. … The record before us does not disclose any evidence taken before the trial court, but we cannot presume error: Hill v. McCrow, 88 Or. 299 ( 170 Pac. 306 ).

State Bank of Portland v. Gotshall

121 Or. 92 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1927

In Brown v. … In Rankin v.

Bean v. Hostettler

182 Or. 510 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1948

Lyons v. Browning, 170 Or. 350, 353 , 133 P. (2d) 599 ; Arthur v. Parish, 150 Or. 582, 588 , 47 P. (2d) 682 ; Cicrich v. State Industrial Accident Com., 143 Or. 627, 636 , 23 P. (2d) 534 ; Timmins v. … See the previously cited cases of Cicrich v. State Industrial Accident Com.; Timmins v. Hale; American National Bank v. Kerley; Spokane County v. Pacific Bridge Co.; Bottig v. Polsky.

In Re Moynihan

166 Or. 200 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1941

Thereafter .exceptions were filed by the accused with the Board of Governors, accompanied by a brief. … One of the elements of the offense of perjury is that the statements made under oath were material to the inquiry: State v. Walton, 53 Or. 557 , 99 P. 431 , 101 P. 389 , 102 P. 173 .

McInnis v. Atlantic Investment Corp.

137 Or. 648 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1931

In the light of Korn v. … J., and Brown, J., concur. Campbell, J., concurs in the result. Petition, for rehearing denied November 3, 1931

Southwell v. Beezley

5 Or. 458 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1875

(Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque, 1 Wall. 222 ; Murray v. Oliver, 3 Or. 539 .) … Rep. 210 ; Blandin v. Sargent, 33 N. H. 239; Gault v. Brown, 48 N. H. 183.)

Oregon-Wisconsin Timber Co. v. Coos County

71 Or. 462 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1914

Rep. 221 ); Mayor Town of Valverde v. Shattuck, 19 Colo. 104 ( 34 Pac. 947 , 41 Am. St. Rep. 208 ); Woodley v. Town Council of Clio, 44 S. C. 374 ( 22 S. E. 410 ); Maynard v. Board of Canvassers, 84 Mich. 228 ( 47 N. … The definition thus given to the word “election” has the sanction of this court in the case of Board of Directors v. Peterson, 64 Or. 46 ( 128 Pac. 837 , 129 Pac. 123 ), where the court, through Mr.

State v. Cunningham

173 Or. 25 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1943

Beeman identified a dark brown coat which he said “was taken from the body” of the deceased. … In support of his contention that reversible error was committed when his motion for a mistrial was denied, the defendant cites: Frint v. Amato, 131 Or. 631 , 284 P. 183 ; State v. Brown, 7 Or. 186 ; Mattox v.

Taylor v. Winn

104 Or. 383 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1922

That case went to judgment in favor of Winn for the full amount claimed, and was affirmed on appeal to this court in Winn v. Taylor, 98 Or. 556 ( 190 Pac. 342 , 194 Pac. 857 ). … Justice Brown, the decision was made to depend largely but not exclusively upon' the effect of the warranty in the conveyance from Taylor to Winn.

DeGuire v. West Fork Logging Co.

215 Or. 82 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1958

60 million board feet had been delivered. … The defendants request v. to make clear that the entire judgment is for the sum of $19,953.63 and that the defendant Lee Downing is liable as guarantor for one-half that amount.

McLain v. Lafferty

257 Or. 553 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1971

On the other hand, the clear purpose of ORS 483.362, as stated by this court in Townsend v. … Such a contention, however, was resolved adversely to plaintiff by this court in Smith v. Moore, 243 Or 413 , 414 P2d 346 (1966).

Barkley v. Oregon City

24 Or. 515 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1893

The record shows that at a regular meeting of the council held on the- of June, 1891, the following order was adopted: “Moved that the council sit as a board of equalization on the evening of the twentieth of June, 1891,” … In cases of assessment, this means that at some time and place he shall have a hearing, or an opportunity to be heard, before the assessment becomes irrevocably fixed (Stewart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 184 ; 30 Am.