Case law

Brown v. Board of Education

207 Or. App. 163 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 2, 2006

See Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 , 588 P2d 1087 (1978). Investigating a coworker may be a job duty, but it is not a personal right or benefit. … See, e.g., McQuary v.

Brown v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

227 Or. App. 642 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 22, 2009

App. 642 BROWN v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION. Court of Appeals of Oregon. April 22, 2009. Affirmed without opinion.

Brown v. Board of County Commissioners

18 Or. App. 607 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 23, 1974

Meury v. Jarrell, 269 Or 606 , 525 P2d 1286 (1974).

State v. McCarthy

302 Or. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 2020

(quoting Brown, 301 Or at 277). … See Brown, 301 Or at 274.

English v. Liberty Northwest Insurance

271 Or. App. 211 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 2015

Claimant argues that, under this court’s opinion in Brown v. … We leave that determination for the board on remand. See, e.g., SAIF v.

State v. Adams

340 Or. App. 661 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 29, 2025

Brown, 297 Or at 407. … Brown was decided before the United States Supreme Court adopted a similar approach in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 113 S Ct 2786, 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993).

Kessler v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

145 Or. App. 584 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 1997

Because those claims of error were neither presented to the Board nor are apparent on the face of the record, we do not address them for the first time here. ORAP 5.45(2); State v. … We rejected that *591 argument in Bollinger v. Board of Parole, 142 Or App 81 , 920 P2d 1111 , rev allowed 324 Or 394 (1996).

State v. Bishop

16 Or. App. 310 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 28, 1974

State v. … Fitzgerald does not state whether the definition of “transaction” for purposes of the joinder statute is the same as the definition of “transaction” for purposes of the constitutional rule of State v. Brown, supra.

Brown v. Brown

206 Or. App. 239 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 7, 2006

.”); McDonald v. … See Miller v.

Brown v. Brown

2 Or. App. 123 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 26, 1970

Jensen v. Jensen, 249 Or 423 , 438 P2d 1013 (1968); Feves v. Feves, 198 Or 151 , 254 P2d 694 (1953). … Beaman v. DeShazor, Jr., 197 Or 669 , 255 P2d 157 (1953). Payne v. Payne, 215 Or 412, 414 , 332 P2d 1075 , 335 P2d 606 (1959), states the rule thus: “Beginning with Henderson v.

Putnam v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

290 Or. App. 436 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 22, 2018

The preservation requirements established in ORAP 5.45(1) apply to review of a board final order. Larsen v. Board of Parole , 206 Or.App. 353 , 366, 138 P.3d 16 (2006). … State v.

State v. Hammond

218 Or. App. 574 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 19, 2008

In State v. … Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 *584 (1990) , and that substantial considerations militate in favor of the affirmative exercise of the discretion under Ailes v.

Brown v. Brown

1 Or. App. 543 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 5, 1970

As the Supreme Court said in Rowley v. … Norris v. Norris, 182 Or 101 , 186 P2d 67 , and Nelson, Divorce and Annulment, 2d ed, § 17.12, page 65.”

Brown v. Brown

4 Or. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 5, 1971

Brown, from an order which modified a divorce decree by changing custody of the minor child of the parties, Sherry Lee Brown, to the plaintiff (father), Irvin E. Brown. … Stonebrink v. Stonebrink, 2 Or App 328, 468 P2d 546 (1970); Cooley v. Cooley, 1 Or App 223, 227 , 461 P2d 65 (1969). This *626 principle was well stated in Rea v.

Brown v. Brown

10 Or. App. 80 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 26, 1972

Brown to intervene in a divorce suit between plaintiff, Add H. Brown, and defendant, James H. Brown. Petitioner is the defendant’s mother. … In Barendrecht v. Clark, 244 Or 524, 528 , 419 P2d 603 (1966), the Oregon Supreme Court stated: “* * * Read literally, this section [ORS 13.-130] permits intervention only before the trial. However, in Duke v.

State v. Trager

158 Or. App. 399 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 17, 1999

In State v. … Brown , 297 at 417.

Brown v. Brown

28 Or. App. 535 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 1977

Abraham v. Abraham, 248 Or 163, 164 , 432 P2d 797 (1967); Cook and Cook, 27 Or App 467 , 556 P2d 707 (1976); Baker and Baker, 22 Or App 555 , 540 P2d 388 (1975).

Brown v. Brown

26 Or. App. 239 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 26, 1976

State v. Dennis

309 Or. App. 584 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 2021

Brown, 301 Or 268, 721 P2d 1357 (1986), and other cases, so long as the automobile is mobile and officers have probable cause to search the vehicle, the state does not need to show any particular exigency under the facts … Dennis see State v.

Martinsen v. Employment Department

227 Or. App. 597 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 22, 2009

Claimant seeks judicial review of a final order of the Employment Appeals Board (board) dismissing his application for review. … Consequently, we affirm the board’s dismissal of claimant’s application for review because it was untimely.