Case law

Caruthers v. Myers

343 Or. 162 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2007

They rely on Novick v. Myers, 333 Or 12 , 35 P3d 1017 (2001). We disagree. … See Caruthers v.

Cranston v. West Coast Life Ins.

72 Or. 116 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1914

Justice McBride, in Francis v. Mutual Life Ins. … Co. v. Wanamaker & Brown, 115 Mo. App. 270 ( 90 S. W. 737 ). 3, 4.

Carrey v. Haun

111 Or. 586 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1924

’s Exr. v. … In Durbin v.

Pearson v. Twohy Bros.

113 Or. 230 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1924

Justice McBride in Sharkey v. … Bean and Brown, JJ., not sitting.' Mr. Justice Rand concurs in the result.

Neidert v. Portland Stages, Inc.

232 Or. 514 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1962

Fels v. East St. Louis & S. Ry. Co., CCA Mo, 275 F 881 (1921); Todd v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 274 Ill 201, 113 NE 95 ; Roberts v. Northwest Airlines, 201 Minn 89, 275 NW 410 . … The plaintiff testified that she boarded the bus, and carried onto the bus a small sack of fruit and fruit juices.

First National Bank v. Department of Revenue

294 Or. 60 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1982

See Bank of California v. Connolly, 111 Cap Rptr 468, 482, 36 Cal App3d 350, 371 (1973).” Hartung v. … Merkle v. Commission, 2 OTR 283 (1966); Jayne v. Department of Revenue, 6 OTR 251 (1975); Estate of Anderson v. Department of Revenue, 6 OTR 339 (1976), see note at 346.

Portland Section of Council of Jewish Women v. Sisters of Charity of Providence

266 Or. 448 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1973

Stevens v. Good Samaritan Hospital and Medical Ctr., 264 Or 200 , 504 P2d 749 (1972); Luckey v. Deatsman, 217 Or 628, 632-33 , 343 P2d 723 (1959); Howland v. Iron Fireman Mfg. … See Patecky v.

Prigge v. Carmichael

235 Or. 112 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1963

Brown, 12 La Ann 299; Grant-Holub Co. v. Goodman, 23 Oh App 540, 156 NE 151 ; In re Daknke-Walker Milling Co., 1 F2d 404; Lutz v. Williams, 79 W Va 609, 91 SE 460 , LRA 1918A 76; Montgomery Bank & Trust Co. v. … Jackson, 190 Ala 411, 67 So 235; Mount v.

Allen v. Hall

328 Or. 276 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1999

See, e.g., Hale v. Groce, 304 Or 281 , 744 P2d 1289 (1987) (permitting intended beneficiary of will to sue lawyer for failing to include gift to intended beneficiary in will as directed by testator); Brown v. … See, e.g., Western Helicopter Services v.

Durbin v. Oregon Railroad

17 Or. 5 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1888

Railway Co., 62 Iowa, 624 ; Heize v. Railway Co., 71 Me. 636; Railroad Co. v. Beale, 73 Pa. St. 504; Railroad Co. v. Clarke Com., 73 Me. 168 ; Haas v. Grand R. R. Co., 47 Mich. 401 ; Tucker v. Duncan, 9 Fed. … It.thus appears to be,a duty imposed by the law upon, a person about to cross a railroad tp, use his eyes and ears, — to look out for sign-boards and signals, and, to listen, for bell and whistle, — and-, if the view, of.

Marcus v. Marcus

173 Or. 693 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1944

Plaintiff instituted this suit against defendant under the provisions of chapter 408, Laws of 1941, praying for a decree of separation from bed and board for a period of one year, with alimony, costs and attorney’s fees. … In Vnuk v. Patterson, 118 Or. 602 , 247 P. 766 , 47 A. L. R. 394, cited by appellant, plaintiff sued for damages for breach of promise of marriage.

State v. Justus

11 Or. 178 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1883

In State v. … In Duer v.

Williams' Bakery v. Coy

230 Or. 557 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 2, 1962

acting in the course of his employment and within the scope of his authority, even though the officer or agent does not in fact communicate his knowledge to the corporation through its other officers or agents, or its 'board … Also see Fleishhacker v. Portland News Pub. Co., 158 Or 476, 487 , 77 P2d 141 ; Dillard v. Olalla Mining Co., 52 Or 126 , 94 P 966 , 96 P 678 ; 3 Thompson, Corporations (3d ed.) 323, §1758.” Phillips v.

Roberts v. Parrish

17 Or. 583 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 13, 1889

It is then alleged, in substance, that Jane *585 Roberts, between the first day of May, 1882, and the thirtieth day of July, 1884, became and was indebted to the defendant in the sum of $353 for services, board, washing,' … (Morrison v. Crawford, 7 Or, *589 472 .)

Clarizo v. Spada Distributing Co., Inc.

231 Or. 516 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1962

Benson v. Birch, 139 Or 459, 466-467 , 10 P2d 1050 (1932); Shearer *521 v. Lantz, supra (210 Or at 633); Sherman v. Bankus, 218 Or 271 , 274 P2d 771 (1959).” … Co. v. United States Shipping Board E. F. Corp., 7 F2d 565 (2d Cir 1925); Void, Law of Sales, § 95 at 462; Annotation: 53 ALR2d 270, 277.

Melms v. Mitchell

266 Or. 208 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1973

In Foster v. … In Brown v. Hassenstab, 212 Or 246, 255 , 319 P2d 929 (1957), we recognized that the seller’s continued assurances that his representations are true can excuse the buyer’s delay in terminating the contract.

Wallowa Valley Stages, Inc. v. Oregonian Publishing Co.

235 Or. 594 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1963

See, e.g., Batt v. San Diego Sun Pub. Co., Ltd., 21 Cal App2d 429, 69 P2d 216 (1937); Bohanon v. James McClatchy Publ. Co., 16 Cal App2d 188, 60 P2d 510 (1936); Gall v. … See, e.g., Bowser v. State Indus. Accident Comm., 182 Or 42 , 185 P2d 891 (1947); Journal Pub. Co. v. State U. C. Com., 175 Or 627 , 155 P2d 570 (1945); Board v.

Brand v. Multnomah County

38 Or. 79 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1900

In further support of the rule, see Stewart v. City of Clinton, 79 Mo. 603 ; Kehrer v. Richmond City, 81 Va. 745 ; Skinner v. Hartford Bridge Co., 29 Conn. 523 ; Smith v. Corporation of Washington, 61 U. … Co. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Mercer Co., 62 N. J.

Farrell v. Port of Portland

52 Or. 582 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1908

This suit is brought by a citizen and taxpayer of the Port of Portland, to enjoin and restrain its board of commissioners from carrying into effect the provisions of an amendment to the act incorporating the port, proposed … The Port of Portland is a municipal incorporation organized in pursuance of an act of the legislature passed in 1901, the constitutionality of which was upheld in Cook v.

Willamette Industries, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

331 Or. 311 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 17, 2000

Taxpayers constitute a forest products business that grows timber and uses that timber to make lumber, plywood, particle board, fiberboard, cardboard, and paper. … Willamette Industries, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 291, 292 (1992).