Case law

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.)

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.

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.

Lonogan v. Jackson

229 Or. 205 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1961

See also Drake v. Sworts, 24 Or 198 , 33 P 563 ; Coos Bay Railroad Co. v. Wieder, 26 Or 453 , 38 P 338 ; Dickson v. Back, 32 Or 217, 232 , 51 P 727 . … Fisher *208 v. Haxtun, 26 Kan 155; Young v. Joseph Bros. & Davidson, 5 Neb (Unofficial) 559, 99 NW 522 ; Jordan v. Brown Shoe Co., 152 Okl 288, 4 P2d 1020 ; 2 Bancroft’s Code Pleading 1563, § 1038.

CROSS OF MALTA BUILDING CORPORATION v. Straub

257 Or. 376 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1971

There we held that interest accruing to a dedicated fund (in that case the State Board of Higher Education Fund), adheres to that fund. … Emrich v. Emery, 216 Or 88, 99 , 332 P2d 1045 , 335 P2d 604 , 337 P2d 972 (1959).

Ramp v. McDaniel

12 Or. 108 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1885

In McGowan v. … Thus, in Brown v.

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.

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.

Hoffman v. Dorris

83 Or. 625 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1917

Co. v. Gordon, 6 Or. 175 ; House v. Jackson, 24 Or. 89 ( 32 Pac. 1027 ); Hayden v. Brown, 33 Or. 221 ( 53 Pac. 490 ); Bogard v. Barham, 52 Or. 121 ( 96 Pac. 673 , 132 Am. St. Rep. 676 ); St. Dennis v. … In House v.

Watkins v. Ackley

370 Or. 604 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2022

Petitioner’s appeal was certified to the Supreme Court under ORS 19.405, along with two other similar cases, Huggett v. Kelly, (A174444)(S068823), and Jones v. Brown, (A175780)(S068824). … And she points to the Court’s decision in Brown v. Louisiana, 447 US 323, 100 S Ct 2214, 65 L Ed 2d 159 (1980), regarding the retroactivity of the rule announced in Burch v.

Richardson v. Richardson

182 Or. 141 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1947

Van Doozer v. Van Doozer, 181 Or. 274 , 181 P. (2d) 126 ; Phillips v. Phillips, 175 Or. 14, 26 , 149 P. (2d) 967 ; Sachs v. Sachs, 145 Or. 23 , 25 P. (2d) 159 , 26 P. (2d) 780 ; Pittman v. Pittman, 3 Or. 553 . … A. §9-914; Van Doozer v. Van Doozer, supra; Norcross v. Norcross, 176 Or. 1 , 155 P. (2d) 562 ; Henry v. Henry, 156 Or. 679 , 69 P. (2d) 280 ; Lambert v. Lambert, 16 Or. 485 , 19 P. 459 .

Bartholomew v. Bason

188 Or. 550 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1950

Van Horn Construction Corp. v. Joy, 186 Or. 473 , 207 P. (2d) 157 . We think that the value of the strip in question can be so determined from the evidence in the case. … Alvin, an appraiser of the State Land Board and a witness for the seller, estimated the value of this strip at $750.00. This figure appeals to us, and we fix the value of said strip at that price.

Butler v. Maas

163 Or. 201 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1939

Justice McBride in Hansen v. … Glenn v. Savage, 14 Or. 567, 574 , 13 P. 442 ; Underwood v. French, 6 Or. 66 , 25 Am. Rep. 500 .

Barrett v. Barrett

5 Or. 411 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1875

In the case of Livermore v. … Nary (41 Vermont, 180), and Barber v. Barber (21 How. U. S. 582), are cited. In the case of Nary v.

State Bank of Portland v. Gotshall

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

In Brown v. … In Rankin v.

Walters v. Dock Commission

126 Or. 487 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1928

In Auglaise Box Board Co. v. Hinton , 100 Ohio St. 505 ( 126 N.E. 881 ), one Bessie Hinton as plaintiff sued a concern entitled the Bloomer Co. on account of a personal injury. … Brown , 44 Kan. 681 ( 24 P. 1100 ), the court corrected an error of the clerk in designating the defendant in the judgment.

Seafeldt v. Port of Astoria

141 Or. 418 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1932

Rep. 134 ); Cole v. Seaside, 80 Or. 73 ( 156 P. 569 ); Chapman v. Hood River, 100 Or. 43 ( 196 P. 467 ). But as said in Chapman v. … City of Corvallis v. Carlile, supra, Mr. Chief Justice Lord quoted with approval from Minturn v. Larue, 23 How. 430 ( 16 L.

Crawford v. O'Connell

39 Or. 153 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1901

v. … Hogle, 30 Ill. 119 ; Page v. Webster, 8 Mich. 263 ( 77 Am. Dec. 446 ); Butler v. Porter, 13 Mich. 292 ; Cooley v. Waterman, 16 Mich. 366 ; Maul v. Rider, 51 Pa. 377 ; State ex rel. v.

Oregon Physicians' Service v. State Tax Commission

220 Or. 487 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1960

Paul v. … The Board of Tax Appeals reasoned that the New York law intended to provide a profit incentive for investors as a means of increasing the supply of housing. It indicated its disapproval of Garden Homes Co. v.