Case law

Jolly v. Kyle

27 Or. 95 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1895

Brown, 100 Cal. 626 ( 35 Pac. 323 ). … H. 362; Slater v. Dudley, 18 Pick. 373 ; Farlin v. Sook, 30 Kan. 401 (46 Am. Kep. 100, 1 Pac. 123 ); Bump on Fraudulent Conveyances, 215.

Kelly v. Galloway

156 Or. 301 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1936

But, as was said in Vawter v. Rogue River Valley Can. Co., 124 Or. 94 , ( 257 P. 23 , 262 P. 851 ), “as a general rule, a corporation can act only through its board of directors at a regularly called meeting. … In Lynch v. Turrish, supra, and Tootle v.

Savage v. Salem Mills Co.

48 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1906

v. … E. 702 ); Nelson v. Brown, 44 Iowa, 455 ; Bucher v. Commonwealth, 103 Pa. 528 . Decided 12 April, 1906. The judgment of the court below will be affirmed. Affirmed.

State v. Turner

104 Or. 334 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1922

Rep. 546; Commonwealth v. Priestly, 10 Pa. Dist. Rep. 217; Commonwealth v. Andruchek, 26 Pa. Dist. Rep. 923; Commonwealth v. Snyder, 13 Pa. Dist. Rep. 27; People v. Neidhart, 35 Misc. Rep. 191 ( 71 N. Y. Supp. 591 ). … Com. 305; State v. Brown, 81 N. C. 568 ; 2 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure (10 ed.), §1301.

Mitchell v. Southern Pacific Co.

105 Or. 310 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1922

BROWN, J. … To similar effect are Consor v. Andrew, 61 Or. 483 ( 123 Pac. 46 ); Forrest v. Portland Ry. L. & P. Co., 64 Or. 240 ( 129 Pac. 1048 ); Buchanan v. Hicks, 66 Or. 503 ( 133 Pac. 780 , 134 Pac. 1191 ); Saxton v.

Barnhart v. North Pacific Lumber Co.

82 Or. 657 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1917

There was no abuse of discretion in refusing to give a cautionary instruction: Scheurmann v. Mathison, 67 Or. 419, 424 ( 136 Pac. 330 , 7 N. C. C. A. 1071); Nordin v. … Lovegren Lumber Co., 80 Or. 140, 149 ( 156 Pac. 587 ); Childers v. Brown, 81 Or. 1 ( 158 Pac. 166 ). The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice Benson concur.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Coe

302 Or. 553 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1987

Before the Disciplinary Board’s trial panel, the Bar moved for an order striking the document from the record for failure to verify and failure to serve properly. … Those charges are filed in this court, and the proceedings are conducted by the Disciplinary Board as an arm of this court. ORS 9.534.

State v. Fraser

105 Or. 589 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1922

S.) 601); State v. Case, 61 Or. 265 ( 122 Pac. 304 ); Quillin v. State, 79 Tex. Or. Rep. 497 ( 187 S. W. 199 , 5 A. L. R. 73 and annotation, p. 782); State v. Elliott, 61 Kan. 518 ( 59 Pac. 1049 ); People v. … Brown, J., took no part in the consideration of this case.

Rusk v. Montgomery

80 Or. 93 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1916

The courts of Oregon will not take judicial notice of initiative charters of cities and towns: Birnie v. La Grande, 78 Or. 531 ( 153 Pac. 415 ); Chan Sing v. Astoria, 79 Or. 411 ( 155 Pac. 378 ). … In Bond v. Wool, 107 N. C. 139, 148 ( 12 S.

McDermid v. Bourhill

109 Or. 633 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1924

Brown v. Volkening, 64 N. Y. 76, 80 . In Illinois Steel Co. v. Jeka, 123 Wis. 419, 429 ( 101 N. W. 399 ), the court, citing Booth v. … J., in Weeks v.

Eckles v. State of Oregon

306 Or. 380 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1988

See 6 Couch on Insurance 2d 971-74, §§ 34:121-22 (rev ed 1985); see also Gilmore v. … If the facts would warrant such a distribution, presumably SAIF’s board would order it, for the general rule is that directors of a mutual insurance company cannot withhold a dividend that should be declared. Rhine v.

Finn v. Erickson

127 Or. 107 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1928

L., §§ 73, 74; McCargar v. Wiley, 112 Or. 215 , 220 et seq. ( 229 Pac. 665 ); Freeman v. Trummer, 50 Or. 287 ( 91 Pac. 1077 ); Guille v. Wong Fook, 13 Or. 577 ( 11 Pac. 277 ); 23 R. C. L., p. 872, §22; 23 R. C. … Bank v. Canal Bank, 239 U. S. 520 ( 60 L. Ed. 417 , Ann. Cas. 1917E, 25, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 194); Interstate Banking & Trust Co. v. Brown, 235 Fed. 32 .

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.

CERTIFIED REALTY COMPANY v. Reddick

253 Or. 617 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1969

Goldin v. Shankroff, 125 Misc. 822 , 211 N.Y.S. 569 ; Davis v. … In Hunter v.

Johnson v. Campbell

259 Or. 444 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1971

of our interest in said contract and property to Emerald Properties, Inc., will, of course, be subject to all the terms and conditions of the contract, excepting that as you know, we have pending an application with the Board … Saxey, 242 Or 238, 242-43 , 409 P2d 184 (1965); Rodgers et ux v. Reimann et ux, 227 Or 62, 66 , 361 P2d 101 (1961); 5 Powell on Real Property § 673, p. 156 (1968). ③ Annot., 14 ALR2d 1376, 1403-04 (1950).

Cascade Exchange, Inc. v. Reed

278 Or. 749 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1977

Brandt et al, 206 Or 636 , 294 P2d 320 (1956), and North Pacific Lbr. v. … Brown, plaintiff’s president, testified that, in addition, his company had its own customer lists which were not available to others gener *753 ally and that his company was possessed of other 'specialized’ information about

Nesbitt v. Myers

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2004

FILED: March 25, 2004 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON TIM NESBITT, Petitioner, v. HARDY MYERS, Attorney General, Respondent. (SC S51107) En Banc Submitted on the record January 21, 2004. … "SUMMARY: Under current law, public employees represented by a union may petition Employment Relations Board for an election to change or terminate union representation.

State v. Nail

304 Or. 359 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1987

He relies on Whalen v. … No matter whether defendant’s arguments about the validity of State v. Jones, supra, and the effect of Whalen v.

Templeton v. Hollinshead

119 Or. 620 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1926

BROWN, J. Charles Findley, as guardian of his mother, Susana M. Findley Templeton, instituted suit against her brother, W. H. Hollinshead, and his three sons, W. … Taylor, 6 Or. 284 ; Phipps v. Kelly, 12 Or. 213 ( 6 Pac. 707 ); Shultz v. Shively, 72 Or. 450 ( 143 Pac. 1115 ); Templeton v. Bockler, 73 Or. 494 ( 144 Pac. 405 ); Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co. v.

Brentmar v. Jackson County

321 Or. 481 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1995

ORS 174.020; PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993). At the first level of analysis, we examine the text and context of the statute. … The order of the Land Use Board of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Land Use Board of Appeals for further proceedings. 1 LDO 218.040 provides in part: “The following uses are permitted if in conformance