Case law

Moffitt v. Salem

81 Or. 686 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1916

His payment was voluntary: Johnson v. Crook County, 53 Or. 329 ( 100 Pac. 294 , 133 Am. St. Rep. 834 ); Tillamook City v. Tillamook County, 56 Or. 112 ( 107 Pac. 482 ). 2. … The right to recover money paid by a person of his own accord in discharging a void tax must be found in a statute or ordinance authorizing the repayment: Board of Commrs. v. Ruckman, 57 Ind. 96, 98 .

Burnett v. Douglas County

4 Or. 388 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1873

(People v. Board of Health, 33 Barb. 346 ; People v. Supervisors, 43 Barb. 232 .) In Ohio the same rule prevails. (Dixon v. Cincinnati, 14 Ohio, 240.) Also in Georgia, where it was held—in Justices v. … (People v. Supervisors, 15 Wend. 197 ; Matter of Mount Morris Square, 2 Hill, 16 ; People v. Stillwell, 19 N. Y. 531 ; Truesdale’s Appeal, 58 Penn. 150 .)

La Vie v. Tooze

46 Or. 206 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1905

Thus, in Scott v. King, 12 Ind. 203 , the defendant agreed to sell and deliver to plaintiff on board a canal’ boat 4,000 bushels of corn, payment to be made upon delivery. … Justice Selden in discussing this question in Terry v.

Lewis v. Aetna Insurance Company

264 Or. 314 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1973

Co. v. Importers’ & Exporters’ Ins. … Brown, Avriting for the court in Tropical Marine Prod. v. Birmingham Fire Ins. Co. of Pa., 247 F2d 116 (5th Cir 1957). The Sea Pak was a wooden vessel, probably built during World War II.

Savage v. Savage

10 Or. 331 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1882

. *333 (Sayles v. Sayles, 21 N. H., 312; Viser v. Bertrand, 14 Ark., 267.) … The facts which are relied upon by her to show the “undue influence” are thus stated in her affidavit: “At the time I signed the stipulation, I was told by some persons, and especially by my brother, Nathan Brown, on that

State v. Frach

162 Or. 602 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1939

Coleman, 1 Or. 192 ; State v. Brown, 2 Or. 221 ; Fox v. Ohio, 46 U. S. (5 How.) 410 ; United States v. Marigold, 50 U. S. (9 How.) *560; Moore v. Illinois, 55 U. S. (14 How.) 13 ; Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U. … S. v. Wells, (D. C.-Minn.) Fed. Cas. 16665, 7 Am. L. Rev. 366; Sligh v. Kirkwood, 65 Fla. 123 , 61 So. 185 ; aff’d 237 U. S. 52 , 59 L. Ed. 835 , 35 S. Ct. 501 ; Weil v. Black, 76 W. Va. 685 , 86 S. E. 666 ; State v.

Cougill v. Farmers' Insurance

25 Or. 360 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1894

Cesar, 2 Saund. 100, and note; until such remitter be made, the judgment is not again in the court from which it was certified, and such court has no jurisdiction of the cause: ' Welsh v. Brown, 42 N. J. … L. 323; State v. Adams, 54 N. J. L. 506, 24 Atl. 482 .

State Highway Commission v. Arnold

218 Or. 43 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1959

Olson v. United States, 292 US 246 (1934); State Highway *58 Commission v. Brown, 176 Miss 23, 168 So 277 (1936); A. D. Graham & Co. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Com’n., 347 Pa 622, 33 A2d 22 (1943); Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. … Supply Co. v. United *69 States, 194 F2d 553 (10th Cir 1952); Finley v. Board of County Commissioners, Okla, 291 P2d 333 (1955).

State Ex Rel. Peterson v. Martin

180 Or. 459 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1946

Gaston v. Thompson , 89 Or. 412 , 422 , 174 P. 717 ; Columbia Fishermen's Union v. St. Helens , 160 Or. 654 , 659 , 87 P.2d 195 ; Kentucky State Board Dental Examiners v. … In Nebbia v.

Clark v. Adney

134 Or. 163 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1930

*165 BROWN, J. … See Dippold v.

Packwood v. State

24 Or. 261 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1893

immediate rights of the litigants are not the only object of the rule, but sound public policy, which is interested in preserving every tribunal appointed by law from discredit, imperiously demands its observation”: Stockwell v. … Township Board of White Lake, 22 Mich. 349 .

State v. State Bank of Portland

117 Or. 208 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1925

Chapter V, Title XXXV, Or. L., covers the question of insolvency and liquidation of state banks. This is part of the 1911 Statute, Chapter 171. Section 6223, Or. … Bean, Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

Dodd v. Home Mutual Insurance

22 Or. 3 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1892

Wilson boarded, and went to his boarding-house about six o’clock and inquired for him, and they said go to his room, and I showed him the policy. … Co. v. Ryland, 69 Md. 437 .) But where the equity entirely fails, we think it better to dismiss the suit and leave the party to pursue such legal remedy as he may be advised.

State Ex Rel. Cox v. Davidson Industries, Inc.

291 Or. 839 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1981

It bases its contention on the interpretation of “waters of this state” made by the Water Resources Board. … In State ex rel Johnson v. Int.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Rochat

295 Or. 533 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1983

From the record made before the Trial Board, we find the following to be the facts. The accused was admitted to practice in Oregon in 1973. He is also admitted to practice in Florida. … The accused advanced the proposition that a violation of DR 1-102(A) (5) is neither more nor less than a charge of “unethical” or *537 “unprofessional” conduct, citing Board of Medical Examiners v.

Warner Stock Co. v. Calderwood

36 Or. 228 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1899

Co. v. Rust, 168 U. S. 589 , 18 Sup. Ct. 208), Mr. Justice Brewer said: “The act of 1850 made a grant in prsesenti. … In another case, still later (Brown v. Hitchcock, 173 U. S. 473 , 19 Sup.

State v. Kincaid

133 Or. 95 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1930

*100 BROWN, J. … The early case of State v.

Tompkins v. Clackamas County

11 Or. 364 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1884

(Commonwealth v. Sessions of Norfolk, 5 Mass., 435 ; South v. Cutter, 10 Wend., 590 .) … Besides, the record shows that on the 9th day of September, 1881, the judge, and not the court acting as a board of commissioners, appointed a term of court to be held on the 17th of October.

Livingston v. State Industrial Accident Commission

200 Or. 468 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1954

This camp was operated by the employer and the employes paid so much per day for board and room. … The court quoted with approval from the case of Kobe v.

Amort v. Tupper

204 Or. 279 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1955

Y. 300 ; Parmlee v. Adolph, 28 Ohio St. 10 ; Williamson v. New Jersey 8. R. R. Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 311; Wicks v. Smith, 21 Kan. 412 ( 30 Am. Rep. 433 ); Marston v. Simpson, 54 Cal. 189 .” Scott v. … Johnson et ux. v. Cofer, 204 Or 142 , 281 P2d 981 ; Schuler et ux. v. Humphrey et ux., 198 Or 458 , 257 P2d 865 ; Miller et ux. v. Protrka et ux., 193 Or 585 , 238 P2d 753 ; Weiss and Hamilton v.