Case law

Tilbury v. Multnomah County

322 Or. 112 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1995

See Smith v. … This court recently held in Ester v.

Northern Counties Trust v. Sears

35 L.R.A. 188 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1895

The-act under consideration in Warren v. … Deady, J., in Dundee Mortgage Co. v.

Lane County v. Wood

298 Or. 191 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1984

Thus in the famous case of Huckle v. … Id., citing Hefley v. Baker, 19 Kan 9 (1877).

In re Long

366 Or. 194 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 21, 2020

See, e.g., Ballard v. … Hosp. v.

Bartholdi v. Baldwin

121 Or. 360 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1927

whether a lien was filed and recorded, but such an allegation, in the face of the alleged fact that the lien was of record, has always been held by this court to be sham in a number of cases, the last of which is Carnes v. … J., and Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

Cassell v. Cupp

296 Or. 488 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1984

In Rightnour v. … Disregarding parole release dates, which may vary in the future depending on the membership of the Parole Board, see State v.

Huggett v. Moran

201 Or. 105 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1954

Hendrickson v. City of Astoria, 127 Or 1 , 270 P. 924 ; Christian v. Eugene, 49 Or 170 , 89 P 419 ; Carter v. City of Portland, 4 Or 339 . … Pillsbury v. Brown, 82 Me 450, 19 A 858, 9 LRA 94; Kritzberger v. Traill County, 62 ND 208 , 242 NW 913 ; City of Seattle v.

State v. Bonilla

358 Or. 475 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2015

See, e.g., State v. Brown, 348 Or 293, 305 , 232 P3d 962 (2010) (“Beal’s consent to a search relinquished the remaining privacy interest in the room and its contents.”); see also State v. … State v.

Salem Water Co. v. City of Salem

5 Or. 29 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1873

Justice Sawyer in The People v. … It wül be further noticed that in Coulson v.

Pickard v. Marsh

62 Or. 192 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1912

Board of Commissioners, 63 Kan. 557 : 66 Pac. 635 ), and it is necessary that the appointment shall be indorsed on the writ, as that is a requirement of the statute above quoted (Davis v. Hamilton, 53 Ill. … Co. v. Page, 61 Mich. 72 : 27 N. W. 859 ; Dolan v. Topping, 51 Kan. 321 : 32 Pac. 1120 ). As said in Gordon v. Knapp, 1 Scam.

Parkhurst v. Capital City Ry. Co.

23 Or. 471 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1893

As was said in State v. … Rep. 602 ), both of which have been criticised and declared to be contrary to the decided weight of authority by Brown, J., in Gas Light Co. v. Saginaw, 28 Fed. Rep. 536, and Jackson, J., in Grand Rapids L. & P. Co. v.

Lane v. Ball

83 Or. 404 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1916

Morgan, 7 Or. 68 ; Brown v. Randall, 36 Conn. 56 ( 4 Am. Rep. 35 ); O’Brien v. Barry, 106 Mass. 300 ( 8 Am. Rep. 329 ); Cardival v. Smith, 109 Mass. 158 ( 12 Am. Rep. 682 ); Graves v. Dawson, 130 Mass. 78 ( 39 Am. … A. 255, n. 256); Antcliff v. Jones, 81 Mich. 477 ( 45 N. W. 1019 , 21 Am. St. Rep. 533 , 10 L. R. A. 621); Zinn v. Rice, 154 Mass. 1 ( 27 N. E. 772 , 12 L. R. A. 288); Rothchild v. Meyers, 18 Ill. App. 284 ; Page v.

Oregon Liquor Control Commission v. Anderson Food Markets, Inc.

160 Or. 646 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1938

Baptist Church v. Utica, etc., Ry. Co., 6 Barb. 313 ; People v. Board of Police, 40 Barb. 626 ; Toledo, etc. Ry. Co. v. Pence, 68 Ill. 524 . There is a technical distinction between a proviso and an exception. … Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532 ; Spieres v. Parker, 1 Term R. 141.”

Jennings v. CONN, AS ADMINISTRATOR

194 Or. 686 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1952

In the case of Bosma v. … A leading case on this subject is Dorsett v. Dorsett, 183 NC 354, 111 SE 541 , 23 ALR 18 . See Sinift v. Sinift, 229 Iowa 56 , 293 NW 841 ; Collier v. Collier, 182 Md 82, 32 A2d 469 ; Wood v.

American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. State Tax Commission

238 Or. 340 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1964

In Brown Forman Distillers Corp. v. … Wisconsin v. J. C.

Burgess v. Charles A. Wing Agency, Inc.

139 Or. 614 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1932

W. 337 ); Cox v. Haun, 127 Ind. 325 ( 26 N. E. 822 ); *624 Frazier v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 51 S. D. 40 ( 211 N. W. 973 ); and Bell v. McConnell, 37 Ohio St. 306 ( 41 Am. Rep. 528 ). … Invited error is never a ground for a reversal: Brown v. Jones, 137 Or. 520 ( 3 P. (2d) 768 ). Moreover, no offer of proof of the character suggested by section 2-704, Oregon Code 1930, was supplied.

Multnomah County v. Dant & Russell, Inc.

158 Or. 350 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1938

Terminal Co. v. … The case, therefore, comes under Coe v.

Ahern v. Settergren

180 Or. 287 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1947

Defendant also cites the case of Martin v. … . *292 Martin v. Martin, supra, is a case where Mr.

Seavey v. Green

137 Or. 127 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1931

Kaser, 68 Or. 153 ( 137 P. 187 ); Love v. Walker, 59 Or. 95 ( 115 P. 296 ). The contention is made by appellants that a co-tenant cannot legally convey by metes and bounds a portion of the common property. … J., Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

State Ex Rel. Spencer v. Howe

281 Or. 599 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1978

Cole, 280 Or 173, 177 , 570 P2d 365 (1977); Peterson v. *604 Klamath Falls, 279 Or 249, 257 , 566 P2d 1193 (1977); Dickinson v. Davis, 277 Or 665, 673 , 561 P2d 1019 (1977); Green v. … Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 16.05, at 444 (1958)). 4 See e.g., South of Sunnyside Neighborhood League v. Board of Comm’rs, 280 Or 3, 22-23, 569 P2d 1063 (1977); Peterson v.