Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersOR

10,000+ results

3.64s

  • Straub v. State of Oregon

    121 Or. 451 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1927

    Township Board of White Lake, 22 Mich. 349 .” This opinion is the rule and guide in this state. The language of Mr. Justice Belt used in the opinion of U’Ren v. … S.) 619); Crook v. Newborg, 124 Ala. 479 ( 82 Am. St. Rep. 190 , 27 South. 432 ); Brown v. Brown, 103 Kan. 53 ( 172 Pac. 1005 , L. R. A. 1918F, 1033).

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • State v. Scheidemann

    252 Or. 70 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1968

    That the address of 1444% Hilyard Street is an apartment and that it is presently listed with the Eugene Water and Electric Board as being in the name of Linda McCarl. … The affidavit discloses that the apartment sought to be searched was listed with the Eugene Water and Electric Board in the name of Linda McCarl.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Penn v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

    363 Or. 677 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2018

    Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion text
  • Barrett v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

    363 Or. 677 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2018

    Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion text
  • State v. Orsi/Gauthier

    108 Or. App. 176 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 3, 1991

    ORAP 5.45(2); State v. King, 307 Or 332 , 768 P2d 391 (1989); Tarwater v. Cupp, 304 Or 639 , 748 P2d 125 (1988). … ORAP 5.45(2); see State v. Brown, 310 Or 347 , 800 P2d 259 (1990); cf State v.

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • School Dist. No. 106 v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

    132 Or. 673 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1930

    *675 BROWN, J. … The consent to any particular measure obtained of individual members •when not in session is not an act of the board, and is not binding upon the district.” See Taggart v.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Boise Joint Venture v. Moore

    106 Or. App. 83 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 1991

    Brown was not interested for several reasons, one of which was the need to find a qualified tenant to operate it. The broker later contacted Brown and told him that defendant was interested in leasing the motel. … See Brown’s Tie & Lumber v. Chicago Title, 115 Idaho 56 , 764 P2d 423 (1988); Traylor v. Henkels & McCoy, Inc., 99 Idaho 560 , 585 P2d 970 (1978).

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Nehalem Timber Co. v. Columbia County

    97 Or. 100 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1920

    Howard, 14 Or. 39 ( 12 Pac. 79 ); Sievers v. Brown, 34 Or. 454 ( 56 Pac. 171 , 45 L. R. A. 642); Higginbotham v. Frock, 48 Or. 129 ( 83 Pac. 536 , 120 Am. St. Rep. 796 ); Collins v. … In O’Hara v.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Cook v. Cook

    167 Or. 474 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1941

    The State of Oregon, by its complaint in intervention, seeks to uphold the validity of the decree of divorce, thereby rendering such property subject to escheat to the State Land Board. … Rep. 104 ; Fritz v. Fritz , 6 Ohio N.P. 258 , 9 Ohio Dec. 274 ; Brown, et al. v. Grove , 116 Ind. 84 , 18 N.E. 387 , 9 Am. St. Rep. 823 ; Hill v. Victoria , 180 Iowa 417 , 161 N.W. 72 ; Wood v.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • White v. Public Employees Retirement Board and State of Oregon (Certified Appeal Accepted)

    Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 18, 2011

    MISCELLANEOUS SUPREME COURT DISPOSITIONS CERTIFIED QUESTIONS, CERTIFIED APPEALS, MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS, AND OTHER MATTERS February 18, 2011 White et al v. … Public Employees Retirement Board and State of Oregon et al (A142773). Certified appeal accepted.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • School District No. 17 v. Powell

    203 Or. 168 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1955

    Lane County v. Neilon, 44 Or. 14, 21 ( 74 Pac. 212 ). Presumptions of this character are made a part of the substantive law of this State by statutory enactment. In State ex inf. Brown v. … The doctrine of this case was followed and applied in State ex rel Brown v. Bailey, 151 Or 496, 500 , 51 P2d 671 , which was likewise a quo warranto proceeding involving the organization of a port.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Erwin v. Oregon State Bar

    149 Or. App. 99 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 2, 1997

    Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 449 , 648 P2d 1289 (1982) (citation omitted). … Prestress v.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Central School District 13J v. Marion County District Boundary Board

    94 Or. App. 506 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 21, 1988

    The second is a petition for judicial review [to the Court of Appeals] within 60 days of the date when a boundary board’s order becomes final. ORS 330.101(6); ORS 183.482. Butte Creek School Dist. v. … State Board of Education, 91 Or App 308, 310 , 754 P2d 923 (1988). (Emphasis supplied.) See also Central School Dist. v. Marion District, 91 Or App 314 , 754 P2d 925 (1988).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Knox v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

    362 Or. 508 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 15, 2018

    Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion text
  • Stephenson v. Van Blokland

    60 Or. 247 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1911

    In the case of Boe v. … Chief Justice Eakin in Bayne v. Brown, 60 Or. 110 ( 118 Pac. 282 ).

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Graham v. Coos Bay R. & N. Co.

    71 Or. 393 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1914

    Brown, 53 Or. 598 ( 101 Pac. 671 ). 10. Under Section 704, L. O. … See, also, McIntosh v. McNair, 53 Or. 87 ( 99 Pac. 74 ); Craft v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.), 62 Fed. 736 ; Brown v. Grossman (Sup.), 108 N. Y. Supp. 653 ; Herbert v.

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Wood v. Wasco Cnty.

    294 Or. App. 155 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 19, 2018

    See City of Damascus v. Brown , 266 Or. App. 416 , 430, 337 P.3d 1019 (2014) ("Standing deals with who can bring a controversy before the court ***. … See Kay v. David Douglas Sch. Dist.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Sayers v. EMPLOYMENT DIV., STATE OF OREGON

    59 Or. App. 270 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 1982

    This conclusion finds support in a statement made by the Supreme Court in Brown v. EBI Companies, 289 Or 455 , 616 P2d 457 (1980). … Although the decision in Brown did not disturb this rule, the court noted: *281 “One difference between ORS 18.160 and ORS 656.319(1)(b) not noted in Sekermestrovich v.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • State v. Turnbow

    99 Or. 270 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1920

    Justice Brown alone. It became the unanimous decision of this court. To become effective, such objections, if any, should have been made at the time of the argument. … state, all causes or proceedings in the Supreme *291 Court, in which the state is a party or interested, when in his discretion the same may be necessary or advisable, and he shall, when requested by any state officer, board

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Knox v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

    288 Or. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 11, 2017

    Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion text

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.