Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
3.64s
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 timesPublished252 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 timesPublishedPenn v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
363 Or. 677 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2018
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion textBarrett v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
363 Or. 677 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2018
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion text108 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 timesPublishedSchool 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 timesPublished106 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 timesPublishedNehalem 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 timesPublished167 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 timesPublishedWhite 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 timesPublishedSchool 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 timesPublished149 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 timesPublishedCentral 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 timesPublishedKnox v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
362 Or. 508 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 15, 2018
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion text60 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 timesPublishedGraham 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 timesPublished294 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 timesPublishedSayers 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 timesPublished99 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 timesPublishedKnox 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