Case law

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.

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 .)

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.

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.

Kirkpatrick v. Peet

247 Or. 204 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1967

As we explained in Baker v. … Brown, 225 Or 306 , 358 P2d 502 (1960); Unemployment Compensation Com. v.

Oregon Lumber & Fuel Co. v. Nolan

75 Or. 69 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1914

Justice Dunbar in Stetson-Post Mill Co. v. Brown, 21 Wash. 619 ( 59 Pac. 507 , 75 Am. St. Rep. 862 ). See, also, Hall v. Parker, 94 Pa. 109 ; Boyer v. Keller, 258 Ill. 106 ( 101 N. E. 237 ); Curtin-Clark Hdw. Co. v. … In Albaugh v. Litho-Marble Dec. Co., 14 App. D. C. 113, the matter of statutory agency is not involved. In Rothe v. Bellingham, 71 Ala. 55 , and North Dakota Lbr. Co. v. Haney, 23 N. D. 504 ( 137 N.

Livesley v. Pioneer Trust Co.

170 Or. 613 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1943

Johnson, Charles V. … Generally, all claims which are not presented prior to the entry of the order of final discharge are barred from payment from estate funds: In re Traaen’s Estate, 154 Or. 263 , 59 P. (2d) 406 , and Brown v.

First Bank of Juntura v. Sitz

138 Or. 297 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1931

Plaintiff relies upon Sievers v. Brown, 34 Or. 454 ( 56 P. 171 , 45 L. R. A. 642), to support its right to recover in this suit. … This doctrine was announced in Lyons v. Chaffee, 79 Or. 485 ( 154 P. 688 ), and in the numerous cases there cited. It is also the doctrine announced in Sievers v. Brown, supra.

State v. Valdez

277 Or. 621 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1977

Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 , 88 S Ct 1868 , 20 L Ed2d 889 (1968). State v. Cloman, 254 Or 1 , 456 P2d 67 (1969). The statute was not enacted exactly as proposed by the Commission. … State v. Evans was tried before the effective date of the statute in question here.

State v. Dorland

161 Or. 403 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1939

It is sufficient if it be alleged and proved that the killing was done while the defendant was engaged in the commission or attempt to commit any of said crimes: State v. Brown, 7 Or. 186 ; State v.

Fisher v. Union County

43 Or. 223 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1903

Bank v. Catlin, 15 Or. 342 ( 15 Pac. 462 ). 3. … Coos County, 30 Or. 250 ( 47 Pac. 852 ); Cunningham v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 576 ; Brandon v. Superior Court (Cal.), 11 Pac. 128 ; Mays v. Lewis, 4 Tex. 1 .

Crystal Communications, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

353 Or. 300 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2013

Coca Cola Co. v. … Coffey v.

Lockwood v. Hansen

16 Or. 102 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1888

(See Kalt v. Lignot, 3 Abb. Pr. 190 . Contra, Crane v. Holcomb, 2 Hilt. 271 ; Thayer v. Holland, 63 How. Pr. 180 .) In Crane v. … And this, too, seems to be the construction in Baine v. City of Rochester, 85 N.

Nesbitt v. Myers

335 Or. 567 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 31, 2003

See Witt v. Kulongoski, 319 Or 7 , 10 n 3, 872 P2d 14 (1994) (so stating). … See Phillips v. Myers, 325 Or 221, 227 , 936 P2d 964 (1997) (“[I]t has been this court’s practice to make conforming changes to the Result Statements when modifying a Caption.”).

Woodard v. Pacific Fruit & Produce Co.

165 Or. 250 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1940

In Potosi Zinc Co. v. … Also see Duncan v. Brown, 18 N. M. 579, 139 P. 140 ; Jones v. Mutual Cream. Co., 81 Utah 223 , 17 P. (2d) 256 , 85 A. L. R. 908. In Carroll v. Warner Bros., 20 F. Supp. 405 (Dist. Ct. So. Dist.

Force v. Heusner

142 Or. 280 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1932

State Land Board v. Lee, 84 Or. 431 ( 165 P. 372 ), and Hydraulic Mining Co. v. … In Day v.

E. J. Struntz Planing Mill Co. v. Paget

123 Or. 651 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1927

It was neither necessary nor proper for him to have been substituted: Smith et al. v. Cram, 113 Or. 313, 320 ( 230 Pac. 812 ); Fildew v. Milner, 57 Or. 16, 21 ( 109 Pac. 1092 ). … Co. v. Oregon Real Estate Co., 10 Or. 444 ; 26 R. C. L. 650, § 32.