Case law

Fritz v. Norblad

566 F. Supp. 1459 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 14, 1983

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Kekai v. Hargrave, 649 F.2d 748, 751 (9th Cir.1981). … Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2707 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Vanelli v. Reynolds School District No. 7, 667 F.2d 773, 777 (9th Cir.1982); Bollow v.

Agristor Credit Corp. v. Schmidlin

601 F. Supp. 1307 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 23, 1985

They rely on Brown v. Western Farmers Association, 268 Or. 470 , 521 P.2d 537 (1974), for this proposition, even though the Court in Brown specifically declined to so hold. … See Russell v. Ford Motor Company, 281 Or. 587 , 575 P.2d 1383 (1978). A defect is not “unreasonably dangerous” merely because it may in some way decrease the value of property. Brown, 268 Or. at 480 , 521 P.2d 537 .

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Birrell

164 F. 104 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 6, 1908

Said Brown, District Judge: “The decision must turn wholly upon the question Whether the respondents’ contract was or was not a maritime contract. … And in Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. 477 , 15 L.

Groeneweg v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 10, 2020

Brown v. Boise- Cascade Corp., 150 Or. App. 391, 408 (1997). … (telling the plaintiff to move boards did not render the defendant in control of the method the plaintiff used to move the boards).

Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co. v. the Go Getter

106 F. Supp. 492 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 22, 1952

Co. v. American Mail Line, Limited, D.C.1950, 94 F.Supp. 28 ; LeMee v. Streckfus Steamers, Inc., D.C.1951, 96 F.Supp. 270 . To make the point that 1404(a) applies to admiralty respondents must get over a word Block. … Fibre Disintegrating Co., 1873, 18 Wall. 272 , 21 L.Ed. 841 ; Browne Civil Law and Law of Admiralty, p. 434.

In re Barrett's Estate

140 F. 569 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 27, 1905

W. 345 ; Leak v. Gay, 107 N. C. 468 , 12 S. E. 312 ; Van Story v. Thornton, 112 N. C. 197 , 17 S. E. 566 , 34 Am. St. Rep. 483 ; Foley v. Cooper, 43 Iowa, 376 ; McLaughlin v. Hart, 46 Cal. 638 ; Vermont Savings Bank v. … See Brown v. Cozard, 68 Ill. 178 ; First National Bank v. Briggs, 22 Ill. App. 228 ; Hoy v. Anderson (Neb.) 58 N. W. 125 , 42 Am. St. Rep. 591 .

Holmes v. Greenbrier Companies

District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 7, 2024

Brian Brown (“Brown Depo.”) 8:20-9:2.) … (quoting Brown v. Gatti, 145 P.3d 130, 133 (Or. 2006)).

Warn v. Brooks-Scanlon, Inc.

256 F. Supp. 690 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 29, 1966

Swift & Co. v. Peterson, 192 Or. 97 , 233 P.2d 216 (1951); Wimer v. Miller, 235 Or. 25 , 383 P.2d 1005 (1963); Pfleeger v. Swanson, supra. I find nothing in Quick v. … A motion for a summary judgment being a proper method by which to raise the legal question, Gifford v. Travelers Protective Ass’n of America, 153 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1946); Creditors Committee of Horton Brown Corp. v.

Allen v. Calvo

832 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 24, 1993

Comeaux v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 915 F.2d 1264, 1273 (9th Cir.1990); Hansen v. Morgan, 582 F.2d 1214, 1219 (9th Cir. 1978); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681q. … See Houghton v. New Jersey Manuf. Ins.

United States v. Innes

218 F. 705 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 14, 1914

Taylor v. United States, 207 U. S. 120 , 28 Sup. Ct. 53, 52 L. Ed. 130 ; United States v. Ah Fook, 183 Fed. 33 , 105 C. C. … It is said in Gregory v. United States, 17 Blatchf. 325, 330 , Fed. Cas.

Mondragon Martinez v. Vega Contreras

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 17, 2024

Brown states she had informed Parsons that Brown had not sent the copies of the subpoenas to Seipel before Brown left on vacation, but Parsons misunderstood and believed Brown had not sent the subpoenas to the entities. … Sorenson v.

Niukkanen v. Boyd

148 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 2, 1956

Justice Black in his dissenting opinion in Galvan v. … Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, supra, 342 U.S. at pages 587 and 597, 72 S.Ct. at pages 517 and 522.

Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. McDaniel

751 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 23, 2010

Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. BLM, 606 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2010). … Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v.

Barton v. City of Portland

242 F. Supp. 2d 893 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 27, 2002

See Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (citing cases involving termination of public employment). … Brewster v. Board of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971 , 986 (9th Cir.1998), cert denied, 526 U.S. 1018 , 119 S.Ct. 1252 , 143 L.Ed.2d 349 (1999) (citation omitted).

The George S. Wright

10 F. Cas. 224 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 2, 1869

Three years afterwards, the supreme court of the United States, in Steamship Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. [69 U. … As a matter of opinion simply, I have yet seen no reason to question the soundness of the conclusion arrived at in The Panama, but, of course this court is bound by the authority of Steamship Co. v. Joliffe, supra.

The Brand

29 F.2d 792 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 8, 1928

PIPER v. KNUDSEN. No. 10272. District Court, D. Oregon. October 8, 1928. Lord & Moulton, of Portland, Or., for libelant. Erskine Wood, Gunther F. … To the same effect is Johnson v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation (C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 963 . The leading case relied upon by counsel for the libelant is The Aurora (D. C.) 163 F. 633 ; Id. (D.

Harper v. Federal Land Bank of Spokane

692 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 27, 1988

(the Hennys), and the Farm Credit Administration and its board members (FCA). … The Supreme Court stated that “ ‘the relevant inquiry is not whether Congress correctly perceived the then state of the law, but rather what its perception of the law was.’ ” Id. at 711 , 99 S.Ct. at 1965 (quoting Brown v

Hooks v. Hood River Distillers, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon · May 7, 2021

On March 23, 2020, due to COVID-19, Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order No. 20-12. … Co. v.

Keeley v. Kerr

270 F. 874 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 7, 1921

The case of Keeley v. Fleet Corporation et al. is an action at law, brought in the state court against sundry individuals, including the attorney for the Fleet Corporation, to recover damages for a tort. … The Fleet Corporation was organized in the District of Columbia by the Shipping Board, with the approval of the President, to build and equip ships; the government subscribing for all the stock of the concern.

Coyle

District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 3, 2026

Jermaine Brown Supp. Mot. Summ. J. (“Brown Decl.”), Ex. 1; see also Brown Decl., Ex. 3.) … See Coyle v. Brown, No. 6:21-cv-00149-SB, 2024 WL 4279424, at *8 (D. Or.