Case law

Brown v. Comstock, Brown & Alm Co.

101 Or. 418 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1921

Brown, the plaintiff, and E. M. Com-stock performed labor for the defendant Comstock, Brown & Aim Company, a corporation in the manufacture of lumber. … J., and McBride and Brown, JJ., concur.

Brown v. Roberts

309 Or. 667 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1990

Petitioners Brown and Peach did not file with the Secretary of State comments and arguments concerning the Attorney General’s draft ballot title. We, therefore, dismiss their petitions for review.

State v. Brown

73 Or. 325 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1914

As said in Carroll v. … E. 537); Olson v. State, 143 Wis. 413 ( 127 N. W. 975); State v. Anderson, 127 La. 1041 ( 54 South. 344 , Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1103); Reismier v. State, 148 Wis. 593 ( 135 N. W. 153 ); State v.

State v. Brown

299 Or. 143 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 9, 1985

Brown has some self-interest in taking the stand and wants to say well, he’s on probation and, therefore, there’s self-interest, I think that’s, in effect, overkill, because it’s obviously [sic] he’s got a self-interest. … See State v. Mains, 295 Or 640 , 669 P2d 1112 (1983); State v. Naylor, 291 Or 191 , 629 P2d 1308 (1981); State v. Van Hooser, 266 Or 19 , 511 P2d 359 (1973).

Leinenweber v. Brown

24 Or. 548 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1893

The allegation that the defendant Brown had knowledge of and participated in the proceedings with the purpose of obtaining the land at an inadequate and unfair price, is too vague and uncertain to charge fraud; and, besides … Eddy, 4 Or. 225 ; Dolph v. Barney, 5 Or. 191; Wright v. Young, 6 Or. 87 ; McRea v. Daviner, 8 Or. 63 . Affirmed.

Brown v. Siemens

117 Or. 583 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1926

Underwood, 68 Or. 56, 59, 60 ( 169 Pac. 536 ); McFarland v. Carlsbad San. Co., 68 Or. 530 ( 137 Pac. 209 , Ann. Cas. 1915C, 555); Boord v. Kaylor, 100 Or. 366 ( 197 Pac. 296 ); Obermeier v. … Bean, Brown, Belt and Rand, JJ., concur.

State v. Brown

296 Or. 458 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1984

Brown, 296 Or 461 , 676 P2d 877 (1984). … We restricted review in this case and the companion case, State v.

Brown v. Kemp

46 Or. 517 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1905

Rep. 756 ); Collins v. Prentice, 15 Conn. 39 ( 38 Am. Dec. 61 ). 2. … E. 647 ); Ellis v. Bassett, 128 Ind. 118 ( 27 N. E. 344 , 25 Am. St. Rep. 421 ). The decree of the court below is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.

Taylor v. Brown

49 Or. 423 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1907

Rep. 836 ); Casto v. Murray, 47 Or. 57 ( 81 Pac. 883 ). … Wong Fook, 13 Or. 577 ( 11 Pac. 277 ); Lewis v. Birdsey, 19 Or. 164 ( 26 Pac. 623 ); Fisher v. Kelly, *426 30 Or. 1 ( 46 Pac. 146 ).

State v. Brown

113 Or. 149 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1924

See the recent case of State v. Harris, 106 Or. 211 ( 211 Pac. 944 ). … Hubbard, it was in the nighttime that Brown delivered the still. She knew of *156 Brown’s visit on one particular night.

State v. Brown

296 Or. 461 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1984

We restricted review in this case and the companion case, State v. … See, State v. Turner, 296 Or 451 , 676 P2d 873 (1984). We affirm the Court of Appeals.

Brown v. Farrell

258 Or. 348 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1971

Justice McBride in Bartels v. McCullough, 102 Or 66 , 201 P 733 (1921): “In Mason v. … Franklin S&L v. Hallmark, supra. We will next deal with the Browns’ and A&R’s appeal from the trial court’s holding that Allen’s lien was valid.

Sievers v. Brown

36 Or. 218 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1899

In Gates v. … Notes] 523; Moore v. Smedburgh, 8 Paige, 600 ; Bank of Columbia v. Hagner, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 455 ; Taft v. Kessel, 16 Wis. 273 ; Baston v. Clifford, 68 Ill. 67 , 18 Am. Rep. 547 ; Martin v.

Brown v. SAIF Corp.

361 Or. 241 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2017

Throughout this opinion we use “combined condition” as the same shorthand phrase for both. 244 Brown v. SAIF court and this one. Brown v. … See, e.g., Luckhurst v. Bank of 256 Brown v.

Davis v. Brown

280 Or. 561 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1977

Brown taken April 8, 1976, marked Exhibit 'B’.” The stipulation of Brown shows that he made the mistake negligently. … Since compromise agreements will not be set aside for ordinary mistakes, Klussman v. Day, 107 Or 109, 116 , 213 P 787 , 214 P 348 (1923), they should not be set aside for negligent mistakes. Cf. Wheeler v.

Brown v. Fields

160 Or. 23 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1938

Lovell Auto Co., 157 Or. 534 ( 72 P. (2d) 61 ); Hamp v. Universal Auto Co., 173 Wash. 585 ( 24 P. (2d) 77 ); Bertrand v. Mutual Motor Co., (Tex.) 38 S. W. (2d) 417 ; Harts v. Raney, 202 N. C. 807 ( 164 S. … R. 628); Steele v. Hemmers, 149 Or. 381 ( 40 P. (2d) 1022 ); Kantola v. Lovell Auto Co., supra. Counsel for plaintiff relies upon Miller v.

Booher v. Brown

173 Or. 464 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1944

Richardson v. Orth, 40 Or. 252 , 66 P. 925 ; Hawkins v. Doe, 60 Or. 437 , 119 P. 754 , Ann. Cas. 1914A, 765; Mathews v. Tobias, 101 Or. 605 , 201 P. 199 ; Brennen v. Derby, 124 Or. 574 , 265 P. 425 ; Losey v. … O’Hair, 160 Or. 63 , 83 P. (2d) 493 ; Harris v. Craven, 162, Or. 1, 91 P. (2d) 302 ; Stever v. Holt, 164 Or. 195 , 100 P. (2d) 1016 .

Brown v. Bonesteele

218 Or. 312 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1959

Lacey v. Oregon R. & N. Co., 63 Or 596 , 128 P 999 (1913); Brown, Personal Property (2d ed 1955), p 416. As a contract carrier or lessor he would be liable only if the loss resulted from his fault. … Dunn v. Henderson, 122 Or 331 , 258 P 183 (1927); cf., Scott v. Brogan, 157 Or 549 , 73 P2d 688 (1937); Hust v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 180 Or 409 , 177 P2d 429 (1947) ; Oliver v.

Emery v. Brown

63 Or. 264 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1912

Johnson v. Iankovetz, 57 Or. 24 ( 102 Pac. 799 : 110 Pac. 398 : 29 L. R. A. [N.S.] 709). *266 2. The second objection is well taken. … Kelley v. Pike, 17 Or. 330 ( 20 Pac. 685 ); McCarty v. Wintler, 17 Or. 391 ( 21 Pac. 195 ); Connor v. Clark, 30 Or. 382 ( 48 Pac. 364 ). The appeal will be dismissed. Dismissed.

Brown v. Grimm

258 Or. 55 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1971

In DeHarpport v. … This court, in Prall v.