Case law

May v. MACK

225 Or. 278 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1960

The ruling in Ramp et al. v. … Whisnant v. Holland, 206 Or 392 , 292 P2d 1087 ; Sylvis v. Hays, 138 Or 418 , 6 P2d 1098 ; Brown v. Jones, 137 Or 520 , 3 P2d 768 ; Multnomah Co. v. Willamette T. Co., 49 Or 204 , 89 P 389 . The case of Whisnant v.

Johnson v. Prineville

100 Or. 105 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1921

Justice Bean in *116 Sweeney v. Jackson County, 93 Or. 96 ( 178 Pac. 365 , 182 Pac. 380 ). It is also taught in Oregon-Wash. R. & N. Co. v. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Ry. … Bean, Benson and Brown, JJ., concur.

Ginter v. Handy

244 Or. 449 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1966

. • ■ The law is as we stated it to be in Britton v. Jackson, 226 Or 136 , 359 P2d 429 (1961); and Phillips, Gdn. v. Creighton, Adm., 211 Or 645, 652 , 316 P2d 302 (1957). … Through December, 1964, we paid out $14,008 for labor and room and board.” The above testimony is evidence to support plaintiff’s claim and requires submission of the issue to the *454 jury. Fields v.

Lemon v. Madden

216 Or. 539 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1959

Denham v. Cuddeback, 210 Or 485, 489 , 311 P2d 1014 ; Holladay-Klots Land Co. v. T. J. Moss Tie Co., 79 Mo App 543; 52 Am Jur 856, Trespass § 27. … Brown, Personal Property (2d ed), 19ff; ORS 41.360(12). This is an action for trespass to real property. The allegations as to the fence can he taken as identifying the damage inflicted by the trespass.

Barnes v. Esch

87 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1917

Brown, 37 Or. 185 ( 61 Pac. 428 ). A suit in equity *6 will lie to restrain, waste: Sheridan v. McMullen, 12 Or. 150 ( 6 Pac. 497 ); Elliott v. Bloyd, 40 Or. 326 ( 67 Pac. 202); Roots v. … Trust Co. v. Leck, 57 Minn. 87 . ( 58 N. W. 826 , 47 Am. St. Rep. 576 ). In Mitchell v.

Douglas County Road Co. v. Abraham

5 Or. 318 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1874

(Washburn on Easements and Servitudes, ch. 1, § 5, and cases there cited; Oustott v. Murray, 22 Iowa, 457 ; Ewell v. Greenwood, 26 Id. 377; Daniels V. The People, 21 Ill. 442 ; Lewiston v. Proctor, 27 Ill. 417 .) … The County Court or Board of County Commissioners can speak only through the journal. ( 8 Ind. 504 ; 6 Cal. 541 ; 7 Ind. 6 .)

Dubiver v. City Railway Co.

44 Or. 227 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1904

Co. 58 Md. 347 , where a minor attempted to board a moving street car by the front platform having one of the steps broken off, when there was a safe way of entry by the rear platform, *234 affording ready and easy access … Co. v. Scott, 58 N. J. Law, 682 ( 34 Atl. 1094 , 33 *238 L. R. A. 122, 55 Am. St. Rep. 620 ); Kerr v. Forgue, 54 Ill. 482 ( 5 Am. Rep. 140 ); Bridger v. Railroad Co. 25 S. C. 24; Kline v. Central Pac. R.

Bailey v. Hickey

99 Or. 251 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1921

BROWN, J. 1, 2. The defendants insist that their demurrer should have been sustained, first, on the *255 ground that “several causes of action have been improperly united.” This contention is without merit. … In Cox v.

United States National Bank v. State Tax Commission

233 Or. 478 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1963

The particular circumstances created by a decision of the Supreme Court,—Eisner v. … NYU Institute of Federal Taxation, 1946, 565 at page 570; Darrell, Corporate Liquidation and the Federal Income Tax, 1941, 89 Pa L Rev 907, 914; Rheinstrom v. Conner, 1942 6th Cir, 125 F2d 790; Earle v.

Hardin v. Dimension Lumber Co.

140 Or. 385 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1932

Veal, 32 G-a. 589; Petty v. Boothe, 19 Ala. 633 . … J., Brown and Campbell, JJ., concur.

Allen v. Dunlap

24 Or. 229 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1893

If only partially performed, he has an absolute right of possession, and an inchoate title, which further performance will perfect and complete”: Aspen Smelting Co. v. Rucker, 28 Fed. Rep. 221. … We think, however, the testimony of Curl, Oak, Brown, and Allen shows that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest have performed work, and made improvements which are of the required value.

Stubbs v. Abel

114 Or. 610 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1925

It has been written in Shore v. … Brown v.

In re Conry

368 Or. 349 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 2021

.)); Cole v. … .]”); Little v.

Sargent v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

264 Or. 435 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1972

Mills v. Dunn Bros., 264 Or 156 , 503 P2d 1250 (1972); Brown v. Spokane P. & S. Ry. Co., 248 Or 110, 117 , 431 P2d 817 (1967). Bad weather' conditions alone have been held to be insufficient. Schukart v.

Hall's Western Auto Supply Co. v. Brock

240 Or. 85 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1965

Bays v. Brown, 160 Or 594, 607 , 86 P2d 951 ; Security Savings & Trust v. Portland Flour Mills, 124 Or 276, 303 , 261 P 432 . … In Matlock v.

Smith v. Day

39 Or. 531 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1901

E. 431 ); Zaegel v. Kuster, 51 Wis. 31 ( 7 N. W. 781 ); Smith v. City of Janesville, 52 Wis. 680 ( 9 N. W. 789 ) ; Benedix v. German Ins. Co. 78 Wis. 77 ( 47 N. W. 176 ). … Sears, 13 Or. 47 ( 11 Pac. 891 ); Cooper v. Blair, 14 Or. 255 ( 12 Pac. 370 ); Bard v. Yohn, 26 Pa. St. 482 ; Klauder v. McGrath, 35 Pal St. 128 ( 72 Am. Dec. 329 ); Little S. Nav. Co. v. Richard’s Admrs, 57 Pa.

State v. Simpson

69 Or. 93 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1914

The canvassing board declared defendant elected to the office of captain of the Oregon Naval Militia, whereupon relator, conformable to the provisions of Section 368 et seq., L. O. … Corp. v. Portland Hospital, 40 Or. 524 ( 64 Pac. 644 , 67 Pac. 194 , 56 L. R. A. 627). 2.

Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego

365 Or. 691 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 15, 2019

CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO; and the State of Oregon, by and through the State Land Board and the Department of State Lands, Respondents on Review, … Also on the petition for reconsideration was Paul Conable. 692 Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego Thane W.

Philomath College v. Wyatt

27 Or. 390 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1893

In Collier v. … The case from Mississippi (Hawkins v. Board of Supervisors, 50 Miss. 735 ) has been *485 reviewed by the United States supreme court — Carroll County v. Smith, 111 U. S. 556 , (4 Sup.

Port of Umatilla v. RICHMOND

212 Or. 596 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1958

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by this Board of Commissioners, all members thereof being present and voting affirmatively, as follows: “1. … See, State v. Hawk; Bridal Veil Lumbering Co. v. Johnson, Coos Bay Logging Co. v. Barclay; Apex Transfer Co. v. Garbade; Sears v. City of Akron; all supra; and, City of Waukegan v.