Case law

State v. Brown

47 Or. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 21, 1980

Defendant argues that the use of Officer Jones’ knowledge, which was illegally obtained, constitutes the fruits of an illegal search, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 US 471 , 83 S Ct 407 , 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963). … In State v.

Brown v. Jackson

268 Or. 111 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1974

The following statement concerning abutting property owners’ rights to the use of a street or highway has been quoted with approval in Lowell et al v. … Lowell et al v. Pendleton Auto Co., supra at 404-05. 7 Am Jur 2d 793, Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 240. Contra, Willard Hotel Co. v. District of Columbia, 23 App DC 272 (1904).

Brown v. Bartlett

212 Or. App. 218 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 2007

App. 218 BROWN v. BARTLETT. Court of Appeals of Oregon. April 11, 2007. Affirmed without opinion.

Dorn-Privett v. Brown

329 Or. App. 783 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 28, 2023

Affirmed. 784 Dorn-Privett v. Brown HELLMAN, J. Petitioner appeals from a judgment that denied her petition for post-conviction relief. … State v.

State v. Brown

94 Or. App. 567 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 4, 1989

See State v. Wise, 305 Or 78, 81 , 749 P2d 1179 (1988). Consequently, we vacate the judgment and remand for fact findings on the motion to suppress. State v. Wise, supra; see also State v.

Brown v. Austin

102 Or. 53 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1921

“Note: After the death of the father of the said Charles Brown, to wit, Paul Brown, and the marriage of mother of Charles Brown, to the said George Gardner, there was loaned to the said George Gardner, by the said Charles … Brown’s mother (then Mrs.

Brown v. Thompson

157 Or. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 1998

Jones v. Thompson, 156 Or App 226 , 968 P2d 380 (1998).

Brown v. Harris

187 Or. 658 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1950

Appellant has cited the early case of Moore v. Floyd, 4 Or. 260 . … In Hayes v. Nourse, 107 N. Y. 577 , 14 N. E. 508 , 1 Am. St.

Brown v. Hill

205 Or. App. 111 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 2006

App. 111 BROWN v. HILL Oregon Court of Appeals. April 5, 2006. Case affirmed without opinion.

Brown v. Hill

341 Or. 197 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 18, 2006

140 P.3d 580 (2006) 341 Or. 197 BROWN v. HILL. No. S53572. OREGON SUPREME COURT. July 18, 2006. Petition for review denied.

State v. Brown

344 Or. 670 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2008

189 P.3d 25 (2008) 344 Or. 670 STATE v. BROWN. No. (S055765). Supreme Court of Oregon. June 20, 2008. Petition for review allowed. Upon consideration by the court. Respondent's petition for review is allowed. … The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and this case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Ramirez, 343 Or. 505 , 173 P.3d 817 (2007).

Bilbrey v. Brown

481 F. Supp. 26 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 9, 1979

M. v. Board of Education, Ball-Chatham Community Unit School District No. 5, 429 F.Supp. 288 (S.D.Ill. 1977) ; Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F.Supp. 47 (N.D.N.Y.1977); Doe v. Renfrow, 475 F.Supp. 1012 (N.D.Ind. 1979); People v. … See Banks v. Board of Public Instruction, 314 F.Supp. 285 (S.D.Fla.1970). I find that these sections provide a sufficiently certain standard for determining whether an object may be seized.

Johannsen v. Brown

797 F. Supp. 835 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 24, 1992

Once completed, Johannsen affixed his copyright notice to the graphite illustration and sent it to Brown, Kippel, and Relix Magazine, Inc. in Brooklyn, New York. Brown and Kippel liked the illustration. … Johannsen v. Brown, 788 F.Supp. 465 (D.Or.1992). Defendants now move for reconsideration of that part of the motion which the court did not grant. That motion is denied.

Werner v. Brown

44 Or. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 5, 1980

Grimstad v. Dordan, 256 Or 135, 139 , 471 P2d *324 778 (1970); Beaver v. Davis, 275 Or 209, 211 , 550 P2d 428 (1976); Russell v. Gullett, 285 Or 63 , 589 P2d 729 (1979). … In State v.

State v. Brown

64 Or. App. 747 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 5, 1983

State v. Green, 271 Or 153 , 531 P2d 245 (1975); State v. Bodenschatz, 62 Or App 606 , 662 P2d 1 , rev den 295 Or 446 (1983). … State v. Stringer, 292 Or 388, 394 , 639 P2d 1264 (1982). Thirdly, defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing expert testimony regarding blood grouping tests.

Andrews v. Brown

56 Or. 253 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1910

The objection taken by plaintiff to the trial of either of these *256 issues was well taken: Love v. Morrell, 19 Or. 545 ( 24 Pac. 916 ); Dice v. McCauly, 22 Or. 456 ( 30 Pac. 160 .) 2. … This case is so similar to Love v. Morrill, 19 Or. 545 ( 24 Pac. 916 ), that we deem an extended opinion unnecessary. The decree of the lower court is affirmed. Affirmed.

Brown v. Vogt

272 Or. 482 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1975

Coates v. … See also Foley v. Pittenger, 264 Or 310 , 503 P2d 476 (1972), reinstating a verdict awarding damages for criminal conversation. The allowance of punitive damages in Coates v.

De Young v. Brown

300 Or. App. 530 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 14, 2019

Brown POWERS, J. … Brown has vindicated an important constitutional right applying to all citizens without any personal gain (the “constitutional” theory), Pendleton School Dist. v.

Sprague v. Brown

283 Or. 5 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1978

in no way admitting that Esther Sprague is entitled to anything, but on the other hand, I am only admitting to this escrow in order that the settlement proceeds can be disbursed as outlined in the accounting letter from Brown … Sandblast v. Williams, 254 Or 395 , 460 P2d 1014 (1969), is very close in point on the latter issue. Charles and Frances Williams were purchasing real property on contract.

Brown v. Buehner

79 Or. App. 58 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 1986

Petitioners challenge the validity of a Builders Board rule, pursuant to which the Board dismissed their claim against the builder of their house. … If the court action is in existence before the claim is submitted to the Board, the Board may refuse to accept the claim. That action effectively terminates any Board involvement.