Case law

State Ex Rel. Pierce v. Slusher

117 Or. 498 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1926

BROWN, J. This is an application for a writ of mandamus, by which it is sought to compel Harley J. … Board of Library Trustees, etc., 136 Cal. 403 , *502 405 ( 69 Pac. 88 ); Ross v. Board of Education, 18 Cal. App. 222 ( 122 Pac. 967 ); Dufton v. Daniels, 190 Cal. 577 ( 213 Pac. 949 ).

Herr v. McAllister

92 Or. 581 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1919

On this question the facts are very similar to those in Brown v. … Justice McBride in Hawkins v. Doe, 60 Or. 437, 441 ( 119 Pac. 754, 756 , Ann.

SAIF Corp. v. Lewis

170 Or. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 4, 2000

Deluxe Cabinet Works v. … The Board expressly found Stringham’s reasoning and conclusions more persuasive than those of the other doctors who examined claimant. The Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Armstrong v.

Siglin v. Coos Bay Company

35 Or. 79 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1899

v. … Co. v.

Union Pacific Railroad v. State Tax Commission

232 Or. 521 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1962

See Bowers v. New York Trust Co., 2nd Cir 1925, 9 F2d 548, 551. … Ry. v.

Klamath Tribute Ctr., LLC v. State Mortuary & Cemetery Bd.

291 Or. App. 195 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 4, 2018

Nacey v. Board of Massage Therapists , 287 Or.App. 228 , 231, 401 P.3d 275 (2017). … The only published federal opinion on point of which we are aware is in agreement with the board's interpretation. See F.T.C. v.

Kmart Corp. v. Lloyd

155 Or. App. 270 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 22, 1998

Claimant sought review from the Board’s decision, arguing that the denial was barred under Messmer II. 3 We remanded the case back to the Board for reconsideration under Messmer II. Lloyd v. … As we have said before, “We will not hold [a statute] invalid ‘if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.’ ” Day, 84 Or App at 294 (quoting from Brown v.

Toedtemeier v. Toedtemeier

137 Or. 28 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1931

Templeton on August 30, 1920, the purchaser assuming and agreeing to pay two mortgages aggregating $5,000, dated January 25, 1915, in favor of the State Land Board. On August 3,1921, S. Gr. … J., Brown and Rossman, JJ., concur.

State ex rel. Public Employes' Retirement Board v. City of Portland

96 Or. App. 393 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 10, 1989

In State ex rel PERB v. City of Portland, 69 Or App 117 , 684 P2d 609 , rev den 298 Or 68 (1984), an earlier appeal in the action, we reversed the trial court’s dismissal of PERB’s petition. … Under State ex rel PERB v. City of Portland, supra, the city was required to perform as the employer of the PECI employes for the purposes of PERS.

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

294 Or. App. 497 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 17, 2018

Board of Parole , 356 Or. 186 , 205, 335 P.3d 828 (2014) ; Martin v. Board of Parole , 327 Or. 147 , 157, 957 P.2d 1210 (1998). … Murphy v. Board of Parole , 241 Or. App. 177 , 184, 250 P.3d 13 , rev. den. , 350 Or. 571 , 258 P.3d 526 (2011).

Seeley v. Public Employees Retirement Board

District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 11, 2025

Akhtar v. … See McGanty v.

Josephson v. Josephson

132 Or. 581 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1930

*583 BROWN, J. The plaintiff’s mother and father were separated when the plaintiff was but five years old. Both have since remarried. … In view of this fact, we note the case of White v.

Drake v. City of Portland

172 Or. 558 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1943

Senior Account Clerk Clerk Brown, Harry W. Account Clerk Clerk Erickson, Selvena M. Junior Clerk Clerk” *577 Simpson is one of the parties to this suit. … The provisions of this Article shall apply to the incumbents of all offices, places and employments in this public service of the City except the following * íf V’ The exemption includes no one involved in this proceeding

SAIF v. Williams

304 Or. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 2020

In SAIF v. … That burden of proof of causation was incorrect, petitioners argue, because the legislature has altered the statutory scheme regulating claims for new conditions, and because Brown v.

Smith v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd.

294 Or. App. 511 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 10, 2018

Dahl v. Clackamas County

243 Or. 152 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1966

State v. McVey, 168 Or 337 , 121 P2d 461 , 123 P2d 181 (1942). The State, by statute, has conveyed its title to some of such lands. … Freytag v. Vitas, 213 Or 462, 469-470 , 326 P2d 110 (1958).

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

292 Or. App. 848 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 18, 2018

In that order, the board, acting under ORS 144.228, 1 deferred petitioner's parole consideration date for a period of 24 months. On review, petitioner contends that, under our decision in Dam v. … board erred in relying on Shellman's evaluation.

Realty Associates v. Women's Club

230 Or. 481 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1962

Brown v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 279 F 417 (3d Cir. 1922) cert d 248 US 558 , 39 S Ct 6 , 63 L ed 420 (see, also, the opinion of the district court in this case, 274 F 467, 469, D. C. E. D. Pa. 1921); Drascovich v. … In Shannon, Auditor, v.

Jansen v. Atiyeh

87 Or. App. 617 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 7, 1987

Jansen v. Atiyeh, 302 Or 314 , 728 P2d 1382 (1986). Article XI-F(l) provides: “Section 1. … Thunderbird Motel v. City of Portland, 40 Or App 697 , 596 P2d 994 , rev den 287 Or 409 (1979).

Crowfoot Elementary School District No. 89 v. Public Employe Relations Board

19 Or. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 1974

We reject petitioner’s contention and agree with the Board. … In Kankkonen v.