Case law

Corliss v. Van Duzer

132 Or. 265 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1930

J., in Hall v. … “In Bowden v.

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.

State v. Schriber

185 Or. 615 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1949

R. 606; Campoamor v. State Live Stock Sanitary Board, 136 Fla. 451 , 182 So. 277 ; Stickley v. Givens, 176 Va. 548 , 11 S. E. (2d) 631 . … State Live Stock Sanitary Board, supra; Stickley v. Givens, supra; State v. Main, supra; Miller v. Schoene, State Entomologist, 276 U. S. 272 , 72 L. ed. 568, 48 S.

State v. Rowen

104 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1921

Carr, 6 Or. 133 ; State v. Bergman, 6 Or. 341 ; Cranor v. City of Albany, 43 Or. 144 ( 71 Pac. 1042 ); State v. White, 48 Or. 416 ( 87 Pac. 137 ); State v. Bilyeu, 64 Or. 177, 180 ( 129 Pac. 768 ); State v. … J., and Johns and Brown, JJ., concur.

Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Bundy

Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1999

FRED MEYER, INC., Respondent on Review, v. KENNETH P. BUNDY Petitioner on Review, and DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES, Respondents. … *Judicial review from the Workers' Compensation Board. 159 Or App 44 , 978 P2d 385 (1999). **Kulongoski, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Fleischner v. Chadwick

5 Or. 152 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1874

The Constitution of Maryland contains a similar provision, and in giving a construction to it, in the case of Davis v. … It is claimed by the appellant that this case falls within the rule laid down in the case of the City of Portland v. Stark ( 2 Or. 69 ).

Klamath Development Co. v. Lewis

136 Or. 445 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1931

Such a spring is not subject to appropriation by a person other than the owner of the land: § 47-1401, Oregon Code 1930; Morrison v. … et al. v.

Raiha v. Coos Bay Coal & Fuel Co.

77 Or. 275 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1915

Clarke-Woodward Drug Co., 65 Or. 516 (133 Pac. 351); Schulte v. Pacific Paper Co., 67 Or. 334 ( 135 Pac. 527 , 136 Pac. 5 ); Dunn v. Orchard Co., 68 Or. 97 ( 136 Pac. 872 ); Wasiljeff v. … Hatuley Paper Co., 68 Or. 487 ( 137 Pac. 755 ); Browning v. Smiley-Lampert Lumber Co., 68 Or. 502 ( 137 Pac. 777 .) An error was committed in giving the instruction complained of.

Neil v. Wilson

14 Or. 410 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1887

(Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236 ; Steamship Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450 ; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299 ; The California, 1 Saw. 463 .) … (The Corporation of New Orleans v. *415 Winter et al., 1 Wheat. 92 ; Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445 .) But the cases are not alike.

River Bros. v. C.F.T. Co., Inc.

124 Or. 157 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1928

As stated in Fehr v. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

State v. Herbert

302 Or. 237 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1986

See, e.g., Texas v. Brown, 460 US 730 , 103 S Ct 1535 , 75 L Ed 2d 502 (1983) (officer had probable cause to believe a tied-off balloon contained an illicit substance); State v. … See State v. Keller, 265 Or 622, 628 , 510 P2d 568 (1973); State v. Elkins, supra.

Stroud v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc.

271 Or. 430 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1975

Plaintiff ordered sausage, eggs, hash browns and toast. The menu indicated the toast contained melted butter. … Noe v.

State v. Burleson

342 Or. 697 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2007

APPROPRIATENESS OF MANDAMUS REMEDY Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441, 445 , 631 P2d 1367 (1981), and may serve only to enforce a known, clear legal right, Ross v. … In State ex rel Grand Jury v.

Sipe v. Pearson

276 Or. 715 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1976

Compare Osburn v. DeForce, 122 Or 360, 368, 369 , 257 P 685 (1927). Norris, B & S v. … . * * *’ ” To the same effect see Brown v. Grimm, 258 Or 55, 61 , 481 P2d 63 (1971).

State v. Westlund

302 Or. 225 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1986

The officer searched defendant and found a transparent brown vial in his front pants pocket. … See, e.g., State v.

Harrington v. La Rocque

13 Or. 344 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1886

(Hill v. Hardy, 34 Miss. 289 ; Dixon v. Houston, 35 Id. 636; Houston v. Williams, 36 Id. 187; Read v. Brown, Id. 330.) … (Wood v. Stone, 39 N. H. 572.) In Holcomb v.

City of Portland v. Albee

67 Or. 221 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1913

Justice Lord in Deane v. Willamette Bridge Co., 22 Or. 167, 176 ( 29 Pac. 440, 443 , 15 L. R. … To the same effect as illustrating the legal principle under consideration, see the cases of Smith v. King, 14 Or. 10, 14 ( 12 Pac. 8 ); McLeod v. Scott, 21 Or. 94, 109 ( 26 Pac. 1061 , 29 Pac. 1 ); McFarlane v.

Shaw v. Moon

117 Or. 558 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1926

Under such circumstances he is liable for injury sustained as a result of his tortious act: Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 335 ( 20 L. Ed. 646 ) Williams v. Kozak, 280 Fed. 373 ; Broom v. Douglas, supra. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Barr v. Woodbury

136 Or. 647 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1931

The complaint shows a cause of action “in favor of all the plaintiffs and against all the defendants, and is not subject to demurrer on the ground of a defect of parties plaintiff”: Cohen v. … J., Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

Whetstone v. Purdue

107 Or. 86 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1923

This case is in some respects similar to the case of Hanthorn v. … Bean, Brown and McCourt, JJ,. concur.