Case law

Evans v. Trude

193 Or. 648 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1952

Brown, 127 Or 551, 558 , 272 P 914 ; American Surety Co. v. Hattrem, supra, at page 365; Crocker v. … Brown, supra, at page 560; Blackabee v. Seaweard, supra, at page 677). The foregoing badges of bad faith, we observe, rest upon admitted allegations of the pleadings or uncontradicted evidence.

Pioneer Real Estate Co. v. City of Portland

119 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 10, 1926

BROWN, J. … Wahl v. Speer, 284 Mo. 45 ( 223 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.

Coates v. Slusher

109 Or. 612 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1924

Coates and the officer was competent (Pugsley v. … J. 1148, 1149; Nevins v. Nevins, 68 Kan. 410 ( 75 Pac. 492 ); Hart *631 pence v. Rogers, 143 Mo. 623 ( 45 S. W. 650 ). In 13 R. C.

Wiegand v. West

73 Or. 249 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1914

Lord, 42 Or. 82 ( 69 Pac. 1033 , 70 Pac. 832 ); Taylor Sands Fishing Co. v. State Land Board, 56 Or. 157 ( 108 Pac. 126 ); Corvallis & Eastern R. Co. v. Benson, 61 Or. 359 ( 121 Pac. 418 ); *254 Franks v. … Ewing v.

Patterson v. Baker Grocery Co.

73 Or. 433 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1914

It is sufficient for that purpose if the party obtaining the benefit had reasonable cause to believe that such effect would result by the means adopted: Western Tie & Timber Co. v. Brown, 129 Fed. 728, 732 ( 64 C. C. … Co. v. Kelly, 3 Or. 99 , where the jury were instructed that it was not competent to show what a parcel of land brought at a sheriff’s sale for the purpose of proving its value.

O'MARA v. Douglas County

318 Or. 72 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1993

O’Mara v. Douglas County, 121 Or App 113 , 854 P2d 470 (1993). … PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-11 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993).

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).

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.

Lumbermen's Nat. Bank v. Campbell

61 Or. 123 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1912

Kamm v. Holland, 2 Or. 59 ; Cogswell v. Hayden, 5 Or. 22 ; Deering v. Creighton, 19 Or. 118 ( 24 Pac. 198 : 20 Am. St. Rep. 800 ) ; Wade v. Creighton, 25 Or. 455 ( 36 Pac. 289 ). 2, 3. … Findley v. Hill, 8 Or. 247 ( 34 Am. Rep. 578 ) ; Brown v. Rathburn, 10 Or. 158 ; Baker v. Elgin, 11 Or. 333 ( 8 Pac. 280 ) ; La Grande National Bank v. Blum, 26 Or. 49 ( 37 Pac. 48 ) ; Montgomery v.

Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Dept. of Revenue

289 Or. 885 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1980

Coca Cola Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 271 Or. 517 , 533 P.2d 788 (1975), Zale-Salem, Inc. v. Tax Com., 237 Or. 261 , 391 P.2d 601 (1964). [5] See Donald M. Drake Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 263 Or. 26, 31 , 500 P.2d 1041 (1972). … See also Joslin Dry Goods Co. v. Dolan, Colo., 615 P.2d 16 (1980).

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.

Breese v. Wildwood Lumber Co.

64 Or. 534 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1913

Co. v. … Johnston v. O. S. L. Ry. Co., 23 Or. 94 ( 31 Pac. 283 ) ; Millen v. Pac. Bridge Co., 51 Or. 538, 554 ( 95 Pac. 196 ) ; Galvin v. Brown & McCabe, 53 Or. 598, 612 ( 101 Pac. 671 ).

Holland v. Bradley

140 Or. 258 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1932

Empire Investment Co., supra; Kemmerer v. Title & Trust Co., supra; Graham v. Merchant, supra. … J., Brown, Band, Kelly and Campbell,, JJ., concur.

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).

Cresap v. Gray

10 Or. 345 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1882

(Lareo v. Casaneuva, 30 Cal., 564 ; Norwood v. Kenfield, 34 Cal., 331 .) … (Adams v. Howe, 14 Mass., 345 ; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87 .)

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.