Case law

Sanders v. Portland & O. C. Ry. Co.

98 Or. 620 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1920

The fact that the amount awarded plaintiffs was paid by the clerk to the state land board to be applied on the mortgage, instead of being paid to plaintiffs, can have no bearing here. … Dec. 575 ); Chicago v. Barbian, 80 Ill. 482 . A judgment fixing the value of the land is not in this state an authorization to the party condemning to take possession of the premises.

American Contract Co. v. Bullen Bridge Co.

29 Or. 549 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1896

In Singer Sewing Machine Company v. … In Steamboat Company v. Brown, 54 Pa.

Woodworth v. Vranizan

273 Or. 111 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1975

Based upon Killiam v. … Commonwealth, Inc., supra ( 256 Or 11 ), this issue was raised in Brown v. Grimm, 258 Or 55 , 481 P2d 63 (1971).

Madani v. Kendall Ford, Inc.

312 Or. 198 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1991

“The Patton opinion reviewed a series of recent employment termination cases [citations omitted] and enumerated the following exceptions: (a) a discharge for exercising a job-related right, Brown v. … In Brewer v.

Hinkle v. State Industrial Accident Commission

163 Or. 395 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1939

Com., 114 Or. 644, 649 , 236 P. 478 ; Re Application of Biggs et al., 105 Or. 531, 552 , 207 P. 175 , 210 P. 217 ; Ring v. Patterson et al., 137 Or. 234 , 1 P. (2d) 1105 , and School Dist. No. 1 v. School Dist. … Marion Co., 96 Or. 334, 343 , 189 P. 903 ; Cranston v. California Ins. Co., 94 Or. 369, 376 , 185 P. 292 ; Reid v. Multnomah County, 100 Or. 310 , 196 P. 394 , and Sullivan v.

Falco v. Kaupisch Creamery Co.

42 Or. 422 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1903

In pursuance of this agreement the corporation was organized, the Kaupisches subscribed for 400 and Rand and Banfield for 200 shares each, and immediately thereafter the board of directors adopted resolutions, reciting that … S. 20 ; Perry v. Carnes, 86 Mo. 652 ; Lane v. Nickerson, 99 Ill. 284 ; Blair v. Hanna, 87 Ind. 298 . The distinction alluded to is made in Dutcher v. Marine Nat. Bank, 12 Blatchf. 435 (Fed. Cas.

Adams v. Albina Engine Works

97 Or. 543 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1920

The rule is stated in Geldard v. … See, also, Galvin v. Brown & McCabe, 53 Or. 598, 608 ( 101 Pac. 671 ); Rogers v. Portland Lumber Co., 54 Or. 387, 392 ( 102 Pac. 601 , 103 Pac. 514 ); Kopacin v.

Roberts v. Pendleton Airmotive, Inc.

258 Or. 554 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1971

The keys to the cars were kept on a key board in the defendant’s back office. Clair Stratton was defendant’s manager. He had a son Mike who was 15 in May of 1967. Mike worked for the defendant in the summer of 1967. … Kor v. Sugg, 250 Or 543 , 443 P2d 641 (1968), is illustrative on this general issue. The defendant parents and homeowners had a can of gasoline in their garage.

State v. Anderson

133 Or. 632 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1930

There was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury the question of his ability to support his own children: State v. Francis, 126 Or. 253, 255 ( 269 P. 878 ). … Bean, Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

Delta Farms v. Scappoose Drainage District

206 Or. 99 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1955

Acting under the above law, the board of supervisors of said district, determining that the above acreage was used for growing crops, proceeded to levy assessments against the same. … In Weddle et al. v. Parrish, 135 Or 345 , 295 P 454 , we said: “* * * the word ‘crop’ usually does not apply to grass growing on depastured lands: Moore v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 76 W. Va. 649, 656 ( 86 S.

Howser v. BEN DIERKS LUMBER CO., INC.

270 Or. 657 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1974

Lee v. Brown, 264 Or 341 , 505 P2d 924 (1973); Downey v. Long, 258 Or 197 , 482 P2d 162 (1971); Pemberton v. Pemberton, supra; Horn v. Calif.-Ore. Power Co. et al, 221 Or 328 , 351 P2d 80 (1960); Longyear, Admx. v. … As stated in Horn v. Calif.-Ore.

State v. Keelen

103 Or. 172 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1922

In the case of State v. … What is here written on this point is not in conflict with State v. Brown, 28 Or. 147, 163 ( 41 Pac. 1042 ), Coos Bay R. R. Co. v. Siglin, 34 Or. 80, 84 ( 53 Pac. 504 ), and Smitson v.

State v. Newton

291 Or. 788 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1981

Flores, 280 Or 273, 279 , 570 P2d 965 (1977); Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 (1977); State v. Ivory, 278 Or 499, 503 , 564 P2d 1039 (1977); State v. … Valdez, 277 Or 621 , 561 P2d 1006 (1977); State v. Florance, 270 Or 169, 180-187 , 527 P2d 1202 (1974); State v. Brown, 262 Or 442, 453 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972).

State v. Fong

211 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1957

Commonwealth v. Webster, supra, 59 Mass at 316. See State v. Hansen, 195 Or 169, 201 , 244 P2d 990 ; State v. Clark, 99 Or 629, 645 , 196 P 360 ; State v. Zullig, 97 Or 427, 431 , 190 P 580 ; State v. … The case of State v.

Turner v. Cyrus

91 Or. 462 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1919

The ruling made in Moody v. … Drew, 58 Cal. 152, 157 ; Heintz v. Cooper, 104 Cal. 668 ( 47 Pac. 360 ); Greve v. Echo Oil Co., 8 Cal. App. 278, 283 ( 96 Pac. 904 ); Brown v. Roberts, 90 Minn. 314, 317 ( 96 N. W. 793 ). Following the lead of McEwan v.

Pio v. Ross B. Hammond Co.

281 Or. 517 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1978

UMW v. Pennington, 381 US 657, 664-665 (1965). … Local 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea Co., 381 US 676 (1965).

State v. Chong Ben

89 Or. 313 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 28, 1918

follows: “An Act to amend Sections 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of Chapter 127 of the General Laws of the State of Oregon for the year 1911, entitled ‘An Act to en-tend and define the indeterminate sentence; to create a Parole Board … The circumstances of this case differentiate it from the case of State v. Quen, 48 Or. 347 ( 86 Pac. 791 ).

Calder v. Orr

105 Or. 223 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1922

BROWN, J, Article IV, Section 20, of the Constitution, providing that “every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title, * * ” has been before … This decision was followed in McWhirter v. Brainard, 5 Or. 426 ; cited and explained in Singer Mfg. Co. v. Graham, 8 Or. 17 ( 34 Am. Rep. 572 ); cited in O’Keefe v.

Laubhein v. Holsman

111 Or. 78 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1924

Fox v. Tift, 57 Or. 268, 275 ( 111 Pac. 51 , Ann. Cas. 1912D, 845). The court did not err in refusing to direct the jury to make a finding as requested by the defendant. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. … J., and Brown and Rand, JJ., concur.

Kane v. Kane

134 Or. 79 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1929

Other jurisdictions support this opinion: Price v. Brown, 4 S. C. 144, 151; Waters v. Hall, 218 App. Div. 149 (218 N. Y. S. 31); Straw v. Mower, 99 Vt. 56 ( 130 Atl. 687 ); Smith v. Howell, 3 Stockton’s Reports (11 N. … Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.