Case law

Mt. Emily Timber Co. v. Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co.

82 Or. 185 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1916

Rep. 550 ); Menomonie River Sash & Door Co. v. Milwaukee & N. R. Co., 91 Wis. 447 ( 65 N. W. 176, 179 ); Gainesville etc. R. Co. v. Edmondson, 101 Gra. 747 ( 29 S. E. 213 ). In Chenoweth v. Southern Pac. … W. 451, 454 ); Gibbons v. Wisconsin Valley R. Co., 58 Wis. 335 ( 17 N. W. 132 ); Gracy v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 53 Fla. 350 ( 42 South. 903 , 908); Brown v. Atlantic & Air Line Ry. Co., 13 Am. & Eng. R. R.

JARVIS ET UX v. Indemnity Ins. Co.

227 Or. 508 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1961

Davis v. … Board of Com’rs of McClain County, 188 Okla 260, 108 P2d 112 ; Angola State Bank v. State ex rel. Sanders, 222 Ind 244, 52 NE2d 620 ; Messier v. Ledoux, 86 NH 115, 164 A 217.

Johnson v. Travelers' Insurance

147 Or. 345 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1934

In Brock v. Traveler’s Ins. … The court cites Brock v. Traveler’s Ins.

McDaniel v. Lebanon Lumber Co.

71 Or. 15 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1914

log is not turned by the canting gear so as to form a right angle with the line thus cut, the ratchet setter by a signal from the sawyer operates the lever forcing the log out the requisite distance to saw as indicated a board … L.: Statts v. Twohy Bros. Co., 61 Or. 602 ( 123 Pac. 909 ).

Fergison v. Belmont Convalescent Hospital, Inc.

217 Or. 453 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1959

Gooch v. … Thomas Hospital, 31 Tenn App 12, 211 SW2d 450 , (patient delirious with fever broke loose from straps, climbed over side boards and *479 fell out of window); Carlburg v.

Jackson v. Wyant

265 Or. 19 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1973

That “frame,” made of 1" x 4" or 1" x 5" boards, was then inserted in the opening and was attached to it by nails. … As held by the Supreme Court of California in DiMare v.

Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake Oswego

Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2016

Parker, Attorney ______________ *  Judicial review from the final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals. 268 Or App 811, 344 P3d 26 (2015). 116 Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. … The final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals is affirmed.

State v. Woolridge

45 Or. 389 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1904

In State v. … The forms thus prescribed have been held sufficient in other cases: State v. Dodson, 4 Or. 64 ; State v. Brown, 7 Or. 186 ; State v. Wintzingerode, 9 Or. 153 ; State v. Lee Yan Yan, 10 Or. 365. In State v.

First National Bank v. Connolly

172 Or. 434 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1942

Hanson , 145 Va. 614 , 618 , 134 S.E. 568 ; Brown v. Daugherty , 120 Fed. 526 . … In Brown v.

White v. Ladd

41 Or. 324 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1902

Failing, 8 Or. 152 ; Neil v. Tolman, 12 Or. 289 ( 17 Pac. 103 ); Glenn v. Savage, 14 Or. 567 ( 13 Pac. 442 ); Harris v. Harris, 36 Barb. 88 ; Hanson v. Manley, 72 Iowa, 48 ( 33 N. W. 357 ); Hobby v. … The foregoing observations have the support of numerous adjudications: Dwight v. St. John, 25 N. Y. 203 ; Second Ward Bank v. Upman, 14 Wis. 596 ; Roulhac v. Brown, 87 N. C. 1 ; Grier v. Jones, 54 Ga. 154 ; Obear v.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Thomlinson-Arkwright Co.

172 Or. 307 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1943

R. 1409, Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Mayor and Board of Aldermen, 74 F. (2d) 983, and St. Louis S. W. R. Company v. Arnold, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 272 , 74 S. W. 819 . … It follows that Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Mayor and Board of Aldermen, supra, and St. Louis & S. W. Railway Co. v. Arnold, supra, cited by the defendant, have no application.

Branch v. Lambert

103 Or. 423 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1922

L. 198; Taylor v. Thieman, 132 Wis. 38 ( 111 N. W. 229 , 122 Am. St. Rep. 943 ); Dayton v. Estate of Dakin, 103 Mich. 65 ( 61 N. W. 349 ); Field v. Field, 77 N. Y. 294 ; Enscoe v. Fletcher, 1 Cal. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Neumann v. Liles

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 3, 2016

Brown v. Gatti, 341 Or 452, 458, 145 P3d 130 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Some defamatory statements are actionable per se— that is, without proof of pecuniary loss or special harm. … Co. v. St.

Lane Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

307 Or. 226 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1988

LEC’s Board of Directors adopted a resolution which increased rates about 10 percent to create a WPPSS contingency escrow fund. … LEC urges us to apply our holding in Corbett Inves’t Co. v.

Waller v. City of New York Ins.

84 Or. 284 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 15, 1917

Co., 63 Or, 427 ( 128 Pac. 427 ); Squires v: Modern Brotherhood, 68 Or. 336 . ( 135 Pac. 774 ); Decker v. … There is nothing in the boards, or beams or bricks of a house by whatever name called that per se makes it an undesirable risk.

State v. Campbell

354 Or. 375 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 2013

In State v. … It might indicate 380 State v.

State v. Fiester

32 Or. 254 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1897

In State v. … Hawkins, 18 Or. 476 ( 23 Pac. 475 ); Territory v. Perkins, 2 Mont. 467 ; State v. Chapman, 6 Nev. 320 ;. State v. Rosemurgey, 9 Nev. 308 ; People v. Gaunt, 23 Cal. 156 ; People v. Williams, 24 Cal. 38 ; McDaniel v.

Dagg v. Department of Revenue

278 Or. 159 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 3, 1977

See Menasha Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR 313 , 317 n 2 (1976). … Moreover, Hanns v. Friedly holds only that it is not error for a court to consider incompetent evidence in the absence of timely objection.

Norton v. Coos County

113 Or. 618 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1925

Moreover, in Wilson v. … Precedents are there cited as follows: Howland v. Board of Supervisors, 109 Cal. 152 ( 41 Pac. 864 ); Fox v. City of Seattle, 43 Wash. 74 ( 86 Pac. 379 , 117 Am. St. Rep. 1037 ); State v. Blaisdell, 18 N. D. 31 ( 119 N.

Wayne v. Huber

134 Or. 464 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1930

Petition for rehearing denied December 16, 1930 On Petition por Rehearing ( 294 P. 590 ) BROWN, J. … This question was before our court in Branch v.