Case law

Good Samaritan Hospital v. Stoddard

126 Or. App. 69 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 19, 1994

When an agreement is unambiguous, its interpretation is as a matter of law, Timberline Equip, v. St. Paul Fire and Mar. … See Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Seney, 124 Or App 450, 454 , 863 P2d 528 (1993).

Brown v. American Surety Co. of New York

181 Or. 564 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1947

An appeal was had to the supreme court by the administrator de bonis non (Brown v. … “V.

Oregon Fire/Police Retirement Committee v. Oregon Public Employes' Retirement Board

296 Or. 464 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1984

The court wrote: “Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist., 290 Or 217 , 621 P2d 547 (1980), held that three different types of terms are in statutes which govern agencies: “ T.) … Compare Addison v. Holly Hill Co., 322 US 607 , 64 S Ct 1215 , 88 L Ed 1488 (1944).

State v. Sweeney

188 Or. App. 255 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 12, 2003

State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). The state reasons that, because the Supreme Court has allowed review in Collins, the legal point is still reasonably in dispute. … State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). If the asserted error satisfies those criteria, we then must exercise our discretion in deciding whether to correct the error. Ailes v.

State Ex Rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co.

272 Or. 545 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1975

The history of this litigation and the numerous legal and factual issues are set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel, 18 Or App 524 , 526 P2d 469 (1974). … evidence in the record to support either the theory that Fischer Cut of the Willamette was formed by an “avulsive” process or by the “exception to the accretion rule” process as described by the federal court in Commissioners v.

Oregon Fire/Police Retirement Committee v. Oregon Public Employes' Retirement Board

65 Or. App. 465 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 9, 1983

Respondent, Oregon Public Employes’ Retirement Board (PERB), is a statutorily-created agency charged with the responsibility of managing PERS. ORS 237.263. … Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist., 290 Or 217 , 621 P2d 547 (1980), held that three different types of terms are in statutes which govern agencies: “1.)

General Insurance v. Gilliam County High School District

234 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 23, 1964

Brown, the principal of Gilliam County High School, and Mr. Wilson, one of the school board members, were present at the time the bleachers collapsed. … Brown reported the collapse of the bleachers at the next school board meeting, which was probably in July or in August and told Mr.

Hood River Valley Residents' Committee, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners

193 Or. App. 485 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 2, 2004

See also Doty v. … Sulliger v.

Brown v. NW Permanente, PC

District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 20, 2023

Plaintiffs Nathon Brown and Sean Trump are healthcare professionals who worked as cardiac perfusionists for Defendant Northwest Permanente, P.C. (NW Permanente). … See Arizanovska v.

In Re Schmalz

169 Or. 518 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1942

Brown now”. … Brown, deceased.

Board of Directors of North Unit Irr. Dist. Gard v. Peck

91 Or. 33 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1919

L., and the decisions of this court applying the same are plain and leave no room for argument: See Rynearson v. Union County, 54 Or. 181 ( 102 Pac. 785 ); Watson v. … L., §§ 14, 15, p. 991; City of Lindsay v. Mack, 160 Cal. 647 ( 117 Pac. 924 ); State v. Park Ridge, 61 N. J. Law, 151 ( 38 Atl. 750 ); City of Chanute v. Davis, 85 Kan. 188 ( 116 Pac. 367 ).

Gadalean v. SAIF Corp.

286 Or. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 2017

.”); Staley v. … See, e.g., BBC Brown Boveri v.

Waxwing Cedar Products, Ltd. v. Koennecke

278 Or. 603 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1977

Browne, refused Browne admittance to the office, and ejected Browne from the premises. … Wagner v. Savage, as Adm’r, 195 Or 128, 147 , 244 P2d *611 161 (1952); Jarvy v.

Brown v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 3, 2012

BROWN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 111014N ) … Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971). “[I]f the evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, the taxpayer will have failed to meet [her] burden of proof.” Reed v.

Florey v. Coleman

114 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1925

BROWN, J. … L.; Morrow County v. Hendryx, 14 Or. 397 ( 12 Pac. 806 ). Does the law empower ns to require the assessor to deliver the assessment roll to the clerk of Jackson County? Section 4291, Or.

Gritzbaugh Main Street Properties, LLC v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

205 Or. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 10, 2006

State v. … See Becker v.

Holmes v. Whitaker

23 Or. 319 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1892

v. … Dec. 374 ); Sawtelle v. Drew, 122 Mass. *324 229 ; Dawson v. Kittle, 4 Hill, 107 ; note to Wigglesworth v. Dallison, 1 Smith’s Leading Cases (7 Am. ed.), 904. “It has long been settled,” says Baron' Parke, in Hutton v.

Goodman v. SAIF Corp.

274 Or. App. 316 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 14, 2015

On review, claimant asserts that, in light of our decision in Brown v. … Id. at 656 ; see also Sather v.

Perez v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

327 Or. 595 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1998

965 P.2d 1023 (1998) 327 Or. 595 Raul Sanchez PEREZ, Petitioner on Review, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent on Review. CA A90127; SC S43927. Supreme Court of Oregon. October 22, 1998. Eric M. … The order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision is vacated. The case is remanded to the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision for further consideration in light of Noble v.

Garratt v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

327 Or. 596 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1998

GARRATT, Petitioner on Review, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent on Review. CA A90817; SC S43921. Supreme Court of Oregon. October 22, 1998. Hari Nam S. … The order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision is vacated. The case is remanded to the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision for further consideration in light of Noble v.