Case law

ASC Contractors v. Harr

298 Or. 552 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1985

Remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Board to reconsider in light of Wheeler v. Boise Cascade, 298 Or 452 , 693 P2d 632 (1985).

C. A. Babcock Co. v. Katz

121 Or. 64 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1927

Morback v. Young, 51 Or. 128 ( 94 Pac. 35 ); Thompson v. First Nat. Bank of Toledo, 111 U. S. 529 ( 29 L. Ed. 507 , 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 689); 1 Bates, Law of Partnership, § 90; Winship v. Bank of United States, 30 U. … J., and Brown and Bean, JJ., concur.

Eastern Oregon Live Stock Co. v. Keller

108 Or. 256 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1923

Porter, 51 Or. 318 ( 95 Pac. 732 ); Foster v. Foster, post, p. 355 ( 213 Pac. 895 ). … Especially should this rule be applied since the water board of the State of Oregon has ceased to function, except by the state engineer, who will probably be unable to adjudicate many of the water rights in the state.

City of Damascus v. State of Oregon

367 Or. 41 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 3, 2020

De Young v. Brown, 297 Or App 35, 443 P3d 642 (2019). … De Young v. Brown, 297 Or App 355, 443 P3d 642 (2019), rev allowed, 366 Or 292 (2020).

Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake Oswego

360 Or. 115 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2016

Parker, Attorney ______________ *  Judicial review from the final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals. 268 Or App 811, 344 P3d 26 (2015). 116 Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. … The final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals is affirmed.

State Ex Rel. Sondheim v. McClain

136 Or. 60 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1931

BROWN, J. This proceeding involves an alleged contempt of court, arising out of the execution of a writ of mandamus in the case of State ex rel. Sondheim v. … Co. v. Casualty Co., 208 Ill. 562 ( 70 N. E. 768 ); Nelson v. London Guar. & Accident Co., 132 Ill. App. 10 .” 5 Standard Proc., p. 370, note.

City of Portland v. Tidyman

306 Or. 174 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1988

The statute establishing the Subversive Activities Control Board, respondent in Communist Party v. … Control Board, supra, was “omitted” (not repealed) in view of the Board’s cessation of operation on June 30,1973, due to lack of funding, but the Subversive Activities Control Act remains in effect. 50 USC § 781 et seq.

State v. Chandler

128 Or. 204 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1929

In State v. Moore, 124 Or. 61 ( 262 Pac. 859 ), Mr. Justice Rossman, speaking for the court, said: *211 “Tn State v. Spores, 4 Or. 198 and State v. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

State v. Neely

239 Or. 487 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1965

Malloy v. … The majority admits that while this was the view expressed in Bram v. United States, 168 US 532 , 18 S Ct 183 , 42 L ed 568 (1897), the contrary had been later expressed in Brown v.

Oregon Automobile Insurance Co. v. Fitzwater

271 Or. 249 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1975

See Loibl v. Niemi, 214 Or 172, 177 , 327 P2d 786 (1958), and cases cited therein. See also Troupe v. Ledward, 238 Or 531, 535 , 395 P2d 279 (1964), and Richard v. … Bernard v. National Guaranty Ins.

Lowe v. City of Eugene

463 P.2d 360 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1969

McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 , 68 S.Ct. 461 , 92 L.Ed. 649 , 2 A.L.R.2d 1338 (1948). … Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 , 81 S.Ct. 1680 , 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961). As it was expressed by Mr. Justice Jackson in West Virginia State Board of Education v.

Falk v. Amsberry

279 Or. 417 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1977

Francis v. Schallberger, 137 Or 529 , 3 P2d 530 , 83 ALR 108 (1931); Myer v. Roberts, 50 Or 81 , 89 P 1051 , 12 LRA(ns) 194 (1907); Sievers v. Brown, 34 Or 454 , 56 P 171 , 45 LRA 642 (1899). … Hostetler v. Eccles, 112 Or 572 , 230 P 549 (1924).

Beale v. Hite

35 Or. 176 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 29, 1899

The California authorities (Hayes v. Martin, 45 Cal. *181 559 ; McManus v. O’ Sullivan, 48 Cal. 7 ; Francoeur v. … Ct. 208; Brown v. Hitchcock, 19 Sup. Ct. 485), the judgment of the court below must be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Decided 7 August, 1899. Affirmed .

Sheard v. Oregon Elec. Ry. Co.

131 Or. 415 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1929

Brown McCabe , 67 Or. 310 , 319 ( 134 P. 1186 ) Coates v. Marion County , 96 Or. 334 , 340 ( 189 P. 903 ). … BROWN and BELT, JJ., not sitting. *Page 428

Medford Assembly of God v. City of Medford

297 Or. 138 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 22, 1984

*140 LINDE, J., In Forman v. … Clatsop County, decided this day, we affirmed a decision of the Court of Appeals that the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has exclusive jurisdiction to review the determination of a local government whether a landowner has

Zimmerman v. Gritzmacher

53 Or. 206 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1909

It is argued on behalf of the city that the ordinance is void because it creates a monopoly, delegates legislative and arbitrary power to the city board of health, and imposes unreasonable and burdensome restrictions upon … Justice Hand, in Harris v. Thompson, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 364, “It is a legal solecism to call that a public nuisance which is maintained by public authority.” See, also, Wood, Nuisance, §§ 753, 757.

Audett v. Purcell

202 Or. 585 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1954

On or about August 4, 1952, plaintiff was paroled from the penitentiary by order of the State Board of Parole and Probation, under conditions set forth in the order. … Chief Justice Brand in Huffman v. Alexander, 197 Or 283 , 251 P2d 87 , 253 P2d 289 . No good purpose would be served in further discussing that law. The trial court did not err in quashing the writ.

Lough v. State Industrial Accident Commission

104 Or. 313 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1922

Similar cases are Bushnell v. Industrial Board, 276, Ill. 262 ( 114 N. E. 496 ); Haiselden v. Industrial Board, 275 Ill. 114 ( 113 N. E. 877 ); O’Esau v. E. W. Bliss Co., 188 App. Div. 385 ( 177 N. Y. … Cas. 1916C, 74); Swisher v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 76 Kan. 97 ( 90 Pac. 812 ); Richards v. Carpenter, 261 Fed. 724 .

Connell v. McLoughlin

28 Or. 230 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1895

W. 568 ); Hatch v. Squires, 11 Mich. 185 ; Streeter v. Poor, 4 Kan. 412 ; St. Louis Railway Company v. Kinman, 49 Kan. 627 ( 31 Pac. 126 ). … An agent employed to make purchases cannot give a negotiable note on which his principal will be liable: Brown v. Parker, 7 Allen, 337 ; Taber v. Cannon, 8 Metc. (Mass.), 456; Webber v. Williams College, 23 Pick. 302 .

De Vall v. De Vall

60 Or. 493 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1911

Co. v. Miller, 165 Ind. 387 ( 74 N. E. 509 ); Ft. Wayne R. Co. v. Donovan, 110 Mich. 173 ( 68 N. W. 115 ); Schmidt v. Brown, 80 Hun (N. Y.) 183; Eggen v. Fox, 124 Wis. 534 ( 102 N. W. 1054 ). See, also, 29 Cyc. 929. … Scott v.