Case law

Redsecker v. Wade

69 Or. 153 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1913

In Burton v. … In Triphonoff v.

Hammond Lumber Co. v. Public Service Commission

96 Or. 595 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 11, 1920

Co. v. Railroad Commission, 156 Wis. 47 ( 145 N. … And in State v.

Trees v. Ordonez

354 Or. 197 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 3, 2013

R. v. … Monk v.

Hopfer v. Staudt

207 Or. 487 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 31, 1956

Staudt, dba Brown-Line Freight Company and against Joseph A. Hopfer, * * *.” It must be said that the ordinary and proper procedure is to set aside the former judgment in express terms if one has been entered. … Co. v.

Moore v. Moore

121 Or. 48 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1926

Warren, supra, has been cited with approval in Bilyeu v. Crouch, 96 Or. 66 ( 189 Pac. 222 ), and in Imbrie v. … McBride, Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Ragnone v. Portland School District No. 1J

291 Or. 617 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1981

This concept of negligence is much like that expressed in an early leading case on the subject, Brown v. … It appears that the concept of what is negligence has remained about the same over the years from Brown v. Kendall, supra, until the present.

State v. Hosmer

72 Or. 57 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1914

O’Neil, 13 Or. 183 ( 9 Pac. 284 ); State v. Hawkins, 18 Or. 478 ( 23 Pac. 475 ); State v. Fiester, 32 Or. 260 ( 50 Pac. 561 ); State v. Howe, 27 Or. 146 ( 44 Pac. 672 ); State v. … Brown, 7 Or. 187 ; State v. Wintzingerode, 9 Or. 157 ; State v. Lee Yan Yan, 10 Or. 366 ; State v. Dilley, 15 Or. 73 ( 13 Pac. 648 ); State v. Ah Lee, 18 Or. 540 ( 23 Pac. 424 ); State v.

City of Portland v. Dollarhide

300 Or. 490 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1986

Harlow v. … As long as a city ordinance employs civil or administrative procedures and sanctions lacking punitive significance, see Brown v. Multnomah County Dist.

State v. Farber

295 Or. 199 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1983

United States v. Peacock, 654 F2d 339, 349 (5th Cir 1981); United States v. Papia, 560 F2d 827, 836 n. 3 (7th Cir 1977); Ottomano v. … Brown, 460 US 730 , 103 S Ct 1535 , 75 L Ed 2d 502 (1983), a four-person plurality is not binding precedent. 12 The present statute specifically mentions this instance.

Smith v. Providence Health & Services - Oregon

361 Or. 456 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 11, 2017

Plaintiff’s position is analagous to the extension of the cause of action for common-law wrongful discharge in Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597, 588 P2d 1087 (1978). … Co. v.

Enloe v. Lawson

146 Or. 621 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1934

Citing State v. McManus, 65 Kan. 720 ( 70 P. 700 ); Stahl v. Lee, 71 Kan. 511 ( 80 P. 983 ). At page 891 of 8 A. L. R., we find, in Landers v. Com., 126 Va. 780 ( 101 S. … Kizer, supra; Durant v. Bennett, supra; Garland Novelty Co., v. State, 71 Ark. 138 ( 71 S. W. 257 ); Kite v. People, 32 Colo. 5 ( 74 P. 886 ).

Smith v. Jefferson

75 Or. 179 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1915

Rep 176); Graham v. School Dist., 33 Or. 270 ( 54 Pac. 185 ); State ex inf. v. … W. 707 ); Holt County v. Scott, 53 Neb. 176 ( 73 N. W. 681 ); Rosell v. Neptune City Board of Education, 68 N. J. Law, 498 ( 53 Atl. 398 ); State v. Perkins, 24 N. J. Law 409; Gregg Tp. v. Jamison, 55 Pa. 468 . 4-6.

Sproul v. State Tax Commission

234 Or. 567 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 29, 1963

Similarly, in Kornhauser v. … This test was applied in Jerry Rossman Corporation v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 175 F2d 711 (2d Cir (1949)). In Lilly v.

Hamilton v. Redeman

163 Or. 324 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1939

In Christie v. Great Northern Railway Co., 142 Or. 321 , 20 P. (2d) 377 , and in Calvin v. … Justice Moore, in Johnston v. O. S. L. & U. N. Ry.

State v. Lissy

304 Or. 455 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1987

In State v. Underwood, 293 Or 389 , 648 P2d 847 (1982), this court interpreted these statutes and allowed evidence of a police officer’s taped conversation with a defendant. … Alexander Brown, City Attorney of Portland, gave the example of a police officer listening in on ransom calls in a kidnapping case, as a reason why the one-party consent exception to the prohibition on listening to a telephone

Hull v. CLEMENS

200 Or. 533 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1954

In Sievers v. … In Jennisons v.

West Hills, Inc. v. State Tax Commission

255 Or. 172 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1970

As held in State by and through Road Commission v. … Continental Development Corp. v. State, Tex Civ App 337 SW2d 371 (1968): Sanitary District of Chicago v. Baumbach, 270 Ill 128, 110 NE 331 (1915). See also 118 ALR, 869 , 884; 85 ALR2d 110.

Ranzau v. Davis

85 Or. 26 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1917

This suit involves the question as to whether or not the farm described in the complaint is subject to an execution upon a judgment in favor of defendant Davis obtained for services performed, boarding help, and expenses … Coal Co. v. Dyett, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 9; Mathews v. Stephenson, 6 Pa. St. 496; Woddrop v. Weed, 154 Pa. St. 307 ( 26 Atl. 375 , 35 Am. St. Rep. 832 ). 6.

In Re Lowengart's Estate

160 Or. 118 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1938

Girard Trust Company, 11 Fed. (2d) 520; Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U. S. 376, 378 ( 50 S. Ct. 336 , 74 L. Ed. 916 ); In re Estate of Schuh, Brown v. Hauck, 66 Mont. 50 ( 212 P. 516 ). … But in Saltonstall v.

State v. King

Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 13, 2017

In Browne & Co. v. John P. … Rise v. Board of Parole, 304 Or 385, 390, 745 P2d 1210 (1987).