Case law

State v. Sanchez-Llamas

338 Or. 267 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 10, 2005

See, e.g., Edye v. … See U.S. v.

Sheets v. B & B Personnel Systems of Oregon, Inc.

257 Or. 135 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1970

Similarly, in Dahl et al v. … (Dahl et al v. Crain et ux, supra, at p 224.)

State v. Osborne

54 Or. 289 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1909

Ed. 402 ) ; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 174 (20 Sup. Ct. 77: 44 L. Ed. 119 ). … In People v. Hall, 51 App. Div. 57 ( 64 N. Y. Supp. 433 ) ; State v. Callahan, 100 Minn. 63 ( 110 N. W. 342 ) and Benedict v.

Nicholas v. Fennell

184 Or. 541 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1948

The left fenders, running boards and body parts of the two cars were torn, stripped and crumpled. The force of the impact caused the left door of the Elliott car to be dismembered. … Byars, 171 Or. 449 , 138 P. 2d 210 ; Kiddle v. Schnitzer, supra; Murphy v. Read, 157 Or. 487 , 72 P. 2d 935 ; Dickson v. King, 151 Or. 512 , 49 P. 2d 367 ; and Snabel v. Barber, 137 Or. 88 , 300 P. 331 .

Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

299 Or. 290 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1985

This disagreement is based on the 1948 case of Lindeman v. State Indus. Acc. … The employer of Brech further contends that the case of Stiennon v.

Dickson v. Back

32 Or. 217 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1897

v. … In Knott v.

Smith v. Cameron

106 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1922

Rep. 301); Oury v. Goodwin, 3 Ariz. 255 ( 26 Pac. 376 ); Ellinghouse v. Taylor, 19 Mont. 462 ( 48 Pac. 757 ); Dayton Mining Co. v. Seawell, 11 Nev. 394 . … Smith-Powers Logging Co. forecloses further discussion of the question under consideration, the writer is prompted to direct attention to Chief Justice Cooley’s remarks made in Ryerson v. Brown, 35 Mich. 333 ( 24 Am.

Matter of Marriage of Meier

286 Or. 437 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 22, 1979

Perley v. Perley, supra, 220 Or at 401 ; Edwards v. Edwards, supra, 191 Or at 280-81 . As stated in Rea v. … In short, the Court of Appeals departed from the rule as stated by this court in cases such as Perley v. Perley, Levell v. Levell, and Edwards v. Edwards, and which we now reaffirm.

Skyles v. Kincaid

124 Or. 443 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1928

Attached to the answer is a copy of report of the board of commissioners; accompanying the latter is a copy of a brief written agreement entered into by the widow and three children. … The above rule was recognized by this court in Bush v. Roberts, 57 Or. 169 ( 110 Pac. 790 ), and in Grand Prize Hydraulic Mines v. Boswell, 83 Or. 1 ( 151 Pac. 368 , 162 Pac. 1063 ).

Harrisburg Lumber Co. v. Washburn

29 Or. 150 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1896

In Hotaling v. … So too in Tredinnick v.

Lipman Oil Co. v. Schwind

132 Or. 381 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1929

See also Jones v. Beers, 118 Or. 317 ( 246 P. 711 ), and Marion Automobile Co. v. Brown, 127 Or. 551 ( 272 P. 914 ). … S. 825); Main’s Appeal, 73 Conn. 638 ( 48 Atl. 965 ); Bath Savings Institution v. Fogg, 101 Me. 188 ( 63 Atl. 731 ); Main Savings Bank v. Welch, 121 Me. 49 ( 115 Atl. 545 ); Taylor v. Henry, 48 Md. 550 ( 30 Am.

Ross v. Portland

42 Or. 134 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1902

In Welch v. … The doctrine of this text has the authority of Ontario Bank v. Bunnell, 10 Wend. 186 , and City of Buffalo v. Le Couteulx, 15 N. Y. 451 . In the case of American Transp, Co. v.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Rhodes

331 Or. 231 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 26, 2000

*233 PER CURIAM In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, a trial panel of the Disciplinary Board concluded that the accused had violated DR 7-106(A) (prohibiting disregard of rulings of tribunal) and DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting … See Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 103-04 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993) (articulating issue preclusion standard).

Prement v. Wells

65 Or. 336 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1913

and called them “God damned sons-of-bitches,” and ordered them to go on top of the pile of lumber and to work from the top of the pile; that they at once obeyed the orders, mounted -the pile, and successfully carried two boards … Ency. of Law (2 ed.), pp. 55-57; Johnson v. O. S. L. Ry. Co., 23 Or. 94 ( 31 Pac. 283 ); 26 Cyc. 1097-1101. 6.

State v. Walton

311 Or. 223 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1991

Defendant relies primarily on California v. Brown, 479 US 538 , 107 S Ct 837 , 93 L Ed 2d 934 (1987). … In State v. Moen, supra, 309 Or at 86-93, this court considered California v. Brown, supra, and its role in relation to “sympathy” in a capital case.

Farmers' Loan Co. v. Oregon Pacific Railroad

28 Or. 44 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1895

In Monkhouse v. … In *67 Edwards v.

Thompson v. Union Fishermen's Co-Op. Packing Co.

118 Or. 436 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1925

Malloy v. … The rule of law is the same as if Jones or Brown had been appointed to administer on the estate of the deceased.

Streuser v. Portland Traction Co.

197 Or. 151 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1953

The case comes to this: The plaintiff, in his sworn testimony, has given a circumstantial account of an injury which he suffered through the alleged negligent operation of the defendant’s bus, which he was intending to board … Ahern v. Oregon Telephone Co., 24 Or 276 , 33 P 403 , 35 P 549 , 22 LRA 635; §§ 1-1001 and 1-1002, OCLA; 71 CJS 1108, Pleading, § 543; 41 Am Jur 551, Pleading, § 376.

Quetschke v. Peterson & Zeller

198 Or. 598 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1953

See also Spence, Adm’x v. Rasmussen et al., 190 Or 662, 681 , 226 P2d 819 ; Nolen v. Corvallis Auto Transit Co., 138 Or 98 , 4 P2d 624 . … Wintersteen v. Semler, 197 Or 601 , 250 P2d 420 , 255 P2d 138 ; Becker v. Tillamook Bay Lbr. Co. et al., 194 Or 134, 143 , 240 P2d 237 ; Spain v. O. W. R. & N. Co., 78 Or 355, 369 , 153 P 470 , Ann Cas 1917E 1104.

Jordan v. Motor Vehicles Division

308 Or. 433 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1989

In Pace Consultants v. … In MacEwan v.