Case law

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.

Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy

Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2024

Umatilla County had designated its county board as the special advisory group. … See Friends of Parrett Mountain v. Northwest Natural, 336 Or 93, 96, 79 P3d 869 (2003) (so stating); Save Our Rural Oregon 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.

De Phillips v. State Highway Commission

203 Or. 561 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1955

Leesi v. Yamhill County, 136 Or 295 , 298 P 911 . However, we do not believe that the above section applies to unincorporated towns. … It might just as well be argued that a school board is the governing body of a town because the school district over which it exercises jurisdiction includes the territory of the town.

State v. Goodall

82 Or. 329 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1916

Brown, Attorney General, for the petition. Mr. Turner Oliver and Mr. Joel E. Richardson, contra. *332 In Banc. Mb. Justice Benson delivered the opinion of the court. 2. … As is said in State v.

Webb v. Hoover-Guernsey Dairy Co.

138 Or. 24 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1931

(See note to Gallagher v. Johnson, 15 A. L. R. 414). Assignments of error 6, 7. … J., Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

Murphy v. City of Albina

22 Or. 106 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1892

(Bonesteel v. New York, 22 N. Y. 162 ; Rens v. Grand Rapids, 73 Mich. 237 ; Dillon v. Syracuse, 9 N. Y. Sapp. 98; Genovese v. Mayor, 55 N. Y. Superior, 397.) … The only existence of the common council of a municipal corporation is as a board, “ and they can do no valid act except as a board, and such act must be by ordinance or resolution, or something equivalent thereto.” (1 Dil

State Ex Rel. City of Eugene v. Woodrich

295 Or. 123 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1983

In Seadade Industries, Inc. v. … In Mann v.

Stiger v. Persyn

138 Or. 178 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1931

Under such circumstances, fraud can not be based upon representations as to value: Castleman v. Stryker et al., 107 Or. 48 ( 213 P. 436 ). … J., Brown and Rand, J.T., concur.

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.

State v. Allen

248 Or. 376 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1967

Johnson v. … Dufour, 99 R.I. 120 , 206 A 2d 82 (1965), which construe Escobedo broadly, with People v. Hartgraves, 31 Ill. 2d 375 , 202 N.E. 2d 33 (1964), and Browne v. State, 24 Wis. 2d 491 , 131 N.W. 2d 169 (1964).” 384 US at 734.

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.

Witt v. Reavis

284 Or. 503 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1978

In February, 1969, the Sauers sold the plaintiffs’ parcel to Browne, plaintiffs’ predecessor, who in turn sold to pláintiffs in 1975. . … This result is supported (by analogy) by Marsh v. Walters, 242 Or 210 , 408 P2d 929 (1965), and Denham et ux v. Cuddeback, 210 Or 485 , 311 P2d 1014 (1957).

State v. Jordan

288 Or. 391 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1980

Brown, 151 US App DC 365, 369-370,467 F2d 419, 423-24 (DC Cir 1972); United States v. *398 McKinney, 379 F2d 259, 262-63 (6th Cir 1967); United States v. … United States v. Cravero, supra; United States v. Brown, supra; United States v. McKinney, supra. The reasonableness of the officer’s judgment is, of course, subject to review.

Holmes v. Burlingame Co.

138 Or. 193 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1931

*195 BROWN, J. … “In James v.

Killam v. Multnomah County

137 Or. 562 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1931

Oliver v. Synhorst, 58 Or. 582 , *568 109 P. 762 , 115 P. 594 ; Cruson v. City of Lebanon, 64 Or. 593 , 131 P. 316 ; Dabney v. City of Portland, 124 Or. 54 , 263 P. 386 . … J., Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

Fenlason v. Pacific Fruit Package Co.

112 Or. 633 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1924

Smith, 21 Or. 598 ( 28 Pac. 974 ); Peterson v. Creason, 47 Or. 69, 71 ( 81 Pac. 574 ); 61 Cent. L. J. 303; Harrison v. Birrell, 58 Or. 410 ( 115 Pac. 141 ). … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Lafferty v. Newbry

200 Or. 685 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1954

It made provision for a board of three to be the official arbiters. The board does not include the Secretary of State. … In State v.

State v. Wheeler

10 L.R.A. 779 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1890

Willes, J., in Regina v. … Law, 457, and note; People v. Brown, 72 N. Y. 571 , 28 Am. Rep. 183 ; State v. Hahn, 38 La. Ann. 169 ; Luttrell v. State, 85 Tenn. 232 , 4 Am. St. Rep. 760 ; 2 Wharton, § 1424; 2 Russell on Crimes, 733.)

Cole v. Marvin

98 Or. 175 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1920

In Stevens v. … And this court by another line of reasoning has practically arrived at that result: Baer v. Ballingall, 37 Or. 416 ( 61 Pac. 852 ). This decision is followed in Browne v. Coleman, 62 Or. 454 ( 125 Pac. 278 ).