Case law

Feldman v. McGuire

34 Or. 309 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1899

In support of the general proposition that the case is not within the statute, see Mallory v. Gillett, 21 N. Y. 413 ; Hoile v. Bailey, 58 Wis. 434 ( 14 N. W. 628 ); Ware v. … Allen, 64 Miss. 545 ( 1 South. 738 ); Clinton National Bank v. Studemann, 74 Iowa, 104 ( 37 N. W. 112 ); Windell v. Hudson, 102 Ind. 521 ( 2 N. E. 303 ); De Walt v. Hartzell, 7 Colo. 601 ( 4 Pac. 1201 ); Browne, Stat.

State v. Miller

54 Or. 381 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1909

State v. Carr, 6 Or. 133 ; State v. Packard, 4 Or. 157 ; State v. Ah Sam, 14 Or. 347 ( 13 Pac. 303 ) ; State v. Lee, 17 Or. 488 ( 21 Pac. 455 ) ; State v. Shaw, 22 Or. 287 ( 29 Pac. 1028 ; State v. … See, also, State v. Foster, 21 R. I. 251 ( 43 Atl. 66 ) ; State v. Duncan, 9 Port. (Ala.) 260; Sterne v. State, 20 Ala. 43 . 4.

Jaquith v. Hartley

243 Or. 27 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1966

See Hale v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 209 Or 99 , 302 P2d 1010 (1956); Drake v. City of Portland, 172 Or 558 , 143 P2d 213 (1943). … Reversed with directions to enter a declaratory judgment consistent with this opinion. ① The trial court in Balacek v. Board of Trustees, Etc., 26 NYS2d 419 , 425 (1941), reached the same conclusion.

Astoria Savings Bank v. Normand

125 Or. 347 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1928

BROWN, J. Did the court abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the decree? This is the single question to be determined here. … In the case of Fretland v.

DeAngelo v. Schiedler

306 Or. 91 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1988

See, e.g., Green v. United States, 365 US 301, 304 , 81 S Ct 653 , 5 L Ed 2d 670 (1961); State v. Allie, 147 Ariz 320, 710 P2d 430 (1985); People ex rel. McKevitt v. … State v.

State v. Quebrado

372 Or. 301 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 16, 2024

See State v. … State v.

State v. O'Day

41 Or. 495 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1902

And such is the character of cases cited by the plaintiff: Sands v. Lynham, 27 Grat. 291 ( 21 Am. Rep. 348 ); Bresee v. Stiles, 22 Wis. 120 ; Ruth v. Oberbrunner, 40 Wis. 238 ; Cryer v. Andrews, 11 Tex. 170 ; Crosley v. … Brown, 161 U. S. 256 , 16 Sup. Ct. 585), that the property had escheated to the state.

State v. Hyde

88 Or. 66 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1918

Ford, but the irregularity evidently passed the clerk of the State Land Board unnoticed. The affidavit accompanying the application is sworn .to before Clarence H. Jones. … The statement is for this reason inadmissible: Osmun v. Winters, 30 Or. 177, 186 . *70 187 ( 46 Pac. 780 ); State v. Tice, 30 Or. 457, 462, 463 ( 48 Pac. 367 ); State v. Magone, 32 Or. 206, 209 ( 51 Pac. 452 ); State v.

Whetstone v. Rogue River Valley Canal Co.

133 Or. 121 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1929

There was no showing as to cost of cultivation, harvesting, or marketing of the crop: Laur et al. v. Walla Walla Irr. Co., 118 Or. 520 ( 247 P. 753 ). … Brown, J. not sitting.

State v. Smyth

286 Or. 293 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 1979

State v. Crawley, 242 Or 601 , 410 P2d 1012 (1966), citing State v. Meyers, 59 Or 537 , 117 P 818 (1911). See also State v. Rawls, 252 Or 556 , 451 P2d 127 (1969); State v. … v.

Weber v. Rothchild

15 Or. 385 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1887

And in Callan v. … Brigham, 74 Ala. 598 ; Purkitt v. Polack, 17 Cal. 327 ; Brown v. Texas Cactus H. Co. 64 Tex. 396 . And the principle is stated as elementary in Bump on Fraudulent Conveyances, p. 53.

Berliner & Schnitzer v. Roberts

226 Or. 350 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1960

See, also, Brown v. Irwin, Executrix, 187 Or 462, 474 , 212 P2d 729 ; Libby v. Southern Pacific Co., 109 Or 449 , 219 P 604 , 220 P 1017 . … See, also, Moss v. Woodcock, 109 Or 597 , 220 P 1017 ; Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 US 398 , 25 LEd 231 . A like holding is to be found in Brown v.

Kosmecki v. Portland Stevedoring Co.

190 Or. 85 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1950

. *94 The burden of proof rested upon thé defendant to establish the facts upon which its claim to immunity is predicated: Inwall v. Transpacific Limber Co., 165 Or. 560 , 108 P. 2d 522 , and Brown v.

J. H. Tillman Co. v. City of Seaside

145 Or. 239 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1933

Robertson v. Blaine County, 90 Fed. 63 , 32 C. C. A. 512 , 47 L. R. A. 459; Wetmore v. Monona Co., 73 Iowa 88 , 34 N. W. 751 ; Board of Commissioners v. Clarke & Courts, 12 Okl. 197 , 70 P. 206 ; Hubbell v. City of So. … In Berkey v. Board of Commissioners, 48 Colo. 104 ( 110 P. 197 , 20 Ann.

Gile & Co. v. Lasselle

89 Or. 107 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 14, 1918

This is taught in Hubler v. Gaston, 9 Or. 66 ( 42 Am. Rep. 794 ) ; Rosenthal Bros. v. Kahn Bros., 19 Or. 571, 573 ( 24 Pac. 989 ); Hamilton v. Gordon, 22 Or. 557, 558 (30 Pac. 495); Backhaus v. … A. 526); Casto v. Murray, 47 Or. 57 ( 81 Pac. 388, 883 ); Taylor v. Brown, 49 Or. 423 ( 90 Pac. 673 ). This is not in derogation of the doctrine of McNeff v. Southern Pac.

Carty v. McMenamin & Ward

108 Or. 489 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1923

BROWN, J. The bill of exceptions discloses a number of assignments of error relating to the reception of evidence to which we make no reference in this opinion. … This is the doctrine taught in Rolfes v. Russell, 5 Or. 400 ; Dunning v. Creson, 6 Or. 241 ; Wimer v. Smith, 22 Or. 469 ( 30 Pac. 416 ); Martin v. Eagle Development Co., 41 Or. 448 ( 69 Pac. 216 ); Bailey v.

Nirschl v. Nirschl

119 Or. 478 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1926

BROWN, J. The defendant presents a persuasive, if not a convincing, argument in contrariety of the findings made by the trial court. … He grounds his contention upon the proviso contained in Section 3 of Chapter 163, Laws of Oregon,’1907, as construed by this court in Olson v.

Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Department of Revenue

268 Or. 633 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 23, 1974

School of the Bible v. Mult. … See also Christian Business Men’s Committee, Inc. v. State, 228 Minn 549, 38 NW2d 803 (1949).

State ex rel. Heath v. Kraft

18 Or. 550 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1890

If it did, the case would be governed by Simon v. Common Council of Portland, 9 Or. 437 . … Fenton v. Scott, 17 Or. 189 .

Eberle v. Benedictine Sisters of Mt. Angel

235 Or. 496 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1963

Briggs v. John Yeon Co., 168 Or 239 , 122 P2d 444 ; 2 Restatement 897, Torts §332. As such, the defendants owe him a duty of reasonable care in the construction and maintenance of the building. G ow v. … general proposition was found inapplicable in Doherty v. Arcade Hotel, 170 Or 374 , 134 P2d 118 .