Case law

Loveland v. Warner

103 Or. 638 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1922

“I am to have the privilege of submitting any question or business problem to your Advisory Board and their opinion and advice are to be furnished without additional cost. … One is that of Browning v. Waycross, 233 U. S. 16 ( 58 L. Ed. 828 , 34 Sup. Ct.

Davidson v. SAIF Corp.

304 Or. 382 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1987

Stepp v. … The decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Workers’ Compensation Board are affirmed.

Lowell v. Wright

369 Or. 806 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 23, 2022

See Garcia v. Bd. of Ed. of Socorro Consol. Sch. Dist., 777 F2d 1403, 1408 (10th Cir 1985) (the plaintiffs, school board members 7 It is unclear why the Court relieved all defendants of liability. … Brown v.

Ladd Estate Co. v. Wheatley

246 Or. 627 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1967

Moyer, 177 Or 486, 497 , 163 P2d 936 ; Scandinavian-American Bk. v. Lumber Co., 101 Or 151, 155 , 199 P 624 ; Condon Nat. Bank v. Rogers, 60 Or 189, 191 , 118 P 846 , Ann Cas 1914A 101. … The action of the directors is not attacked (and assuredly could not be) because there was no formal meeting of the board of directors.

Rees v. Valley View Drainage District

101 Or. 65 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1921

E. 110 ); State ex rel. v. Taylor, 224 Mo. 393 ( 123 S. W. 892 ); Hackett v. State, 113 Ind. 532 ( 15 N. E. 799 ); Oliver v. Monona Co., 117 Iowa, 43 ( 90 N. W. 510 ); Northern P. R. Co. v. … S.) 286); People ex rel. v. Seaman, 239 Ill. 611 ( 88 N. E. 212 ); note in 60 L. R. A. 247. See, also, Splonskofsky v. Minto, 62 Or. 560, 572 ( 126 Pac. 15 ); Hackett v. Brown, 128 Mich. 141 ( 87 N. W. 102 ).

DENHAM ET UX v. Cuddeback

210 Or. 485 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1957

In Hubbard v. … Also see Parmentier v. Ransom, 179 Or 17, 23 , 169 P2d 883 ; Savage v. Palmer, 204 Or 257, 274 , 280 P2d 982 ; Brown v. Jones, 137 Or 520, 526 , 3 P2d 768 ; Godvig v. Lopes, 185 Or 301, 320 , 202 P2d 935 .

Shattuck v. Kincaid

31 Or. 379 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1897

In coming to this conclusion we have not overlooked the case of Brown v. Fleischner, 4 Or. 132 . … The case of Brown v. Fleischner will, therefore, be overruled in so far as it is in conflict with this opinion.

Wade v. Jones

116 Or. 536 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1925

BROWN, J. This action arose out of the disposition of the proceeds derived from the sale of a band *537 of sheep. … Mitchell v. Rider, 78 Or. 318 ( 145 Pac. 1056 , 152 Pac. 497 ); Kay v. Portland, 79 Or. 146 ( 154 Pac. 750 ); Kapischka v. Tillamook Hotel Co., 86 Or. 498 ( 168 Pac. 938 ); Meridianal Company v.

Bowles v. Barde Steel Co.

177 Or. 421 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1945

Schaffer v. Leimberg, supra. See also Brown v. DeConcini, 60 Ariz. 476 , 140 P. (2d) 224 ; Miller v. Municipal Court of City of Los Angeles, supra; Lapinski v. Copacino, supra; Regan v. … board, and that the practice was employed as a subterfuge to evade the regulation.

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Walker

132 Or. 73 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1929

Co. , 132 N.C. 1 ( 43 S.E. 479 ); Gordon et al. v. Litwood Oil Supply Co. , (Tex.) 261 S.W. 400 ; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Willis , supra; Northwestern Ins. Co. v. Atkins , 66 Ky. 328 ; Girard Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. … BROWN, J., did not participate in the decision.

McDonald v. Shore

285 Or. 151 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1979

Hay v. Pacific TasteeFreez, Inc., 276 Or 569 , 555 P2d 1256 (1976); Ross v. Carlyle et ux, 216 Or 576 , 339 P2d 1114 (1959); Brown et ux v. Hassenstab et ux, 212 Or 246 , 319 P2d 929 (1957); Scott v. … As stated in Schuler et ux v.

In Re the Relationship of Henry

326 Or. 166 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1997

Marks, 281 SC 316, 315 SE2d 158, 160 (SC App 1984); Brown v. … Brown, 847 SW2d 496, 499 (Tenn 1993); In Interest ofS.A.V., 837 SW2d 80, 87-88 (Tex 1992); State in Interest of D.S.K., 792 P2d 118, 128 (Utah App 1990); Arbogast v.

State v. O'Neil

13 Or. 183 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1886

(People v. Gaunt, 23 Cal. 157 ; People v. Williams, 24 Id. 31; People v. Dodge, 28 Id. 448; People v. Brown, 46 Id. 103.) The affidavit states “that C. M. … (People v. Francis, 38 Cal. 187 ; People v. Ah Fat, 48 Id. 63.)

Flanagan Estate v. Great Cent. Land Co.

45 Or. 335 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1904

Co. v. Mackenzie, 33 Or. 209 ( 52 Pac. 1046 ); Vail v. Drexel, 9 Ill. App. 439 . Mr. … And this court has given utterance to a similar view in Sievers v. Brown, 34 Or. 454 ( 56 Pac. 171 , 45 L. R. A. 642), which is especially applicable to.the case at bar, wherein Mr.

Western Savings Co. v. Houston

38 Or. 377 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1901

Assoc. v. … Assoc. v.

Dekum v. Multnomah County

38 Or. 253 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1901

Baxter, 4 Or. 105 ; Renshaw v. Taylor, 7 Or. 315 ; Sellwood v. Gray, 11 Or. 534 ( 5 Pac. 196 ); Thompson v. Marshall, 21 Or. 171 ( 27 Pac. 957 ); Adair v. Adair, 22 Or. 115 ( 29 Pac. 193 ); Marx v. … Law (1 ed.), 315; Hasbrouck v. Angevine, 1 N. Y. Supp. 789 ; Browne v. Rockover, 84 Va. 424 ( 4 S. E. 745 ).

Portland v. New England Casualty Co.

78 Or. 195 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1915

The provisions of the act are practically made a part of the bond, just as though they were incorporated therein: State v. Manhattan Rubber Co., 149 Mo. 181 ( 50 S. W. 321 ); Board v. … Inst. v. Young, 161 N. Y. 23 ( 55 N. E. 483 ), is in conformity with the spirit and letter of the law.

In Re Estate of Purdin

128 Or. 403 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1929

In Emery v. Brown, 63 Or. 264 ( 127 Pac. 582 ), we held that notice of the motion to extend time to file the transcript was not necessary in the Circuit Court and this holding was repeated in Subbo v.

Mills v. Dunn Bros.

264 Or. 156 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1972

Brown v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry. Co., 248 Or 110, 117 , 431 P2d 817 (1967).

Douglas County Road Co. v. County of Douglas

6 Or. 299 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1877

The matter involved herein first came before this court in the suit of The Douglas County Road Co. v. Abraham et al., decided at the December term, 1874, and reported in 5 Or. 322 . … The recital of the contract is that it was made and concluded by the county court— composed of a county judge and two county commissioners, whose names are given, sitting as a board to do county business.