Case law

Dental v. City of Salem

196 Or. App. 574 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2004

Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 451 , 648 P2d 1289 (1982). … Washington, 182 Or App 112, 120 , 47 P3d 537 (2002) (holding that Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision abuses its discretion only “when [it] exceeds the legal bounds on its authority’); Bi-Mart Corp. v.

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Dairyland Insurance

274 Or. 145 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1976

Curtis Brown was injured by the negligence of an uninsured motorist while a passenger in a vehicle operated by Doyle Brown and owned by Jodie A. Bond. Both of the Browns were using the vehicle with the consent of Bond. … Devine, 211 So 2d 587, 589 (Fla App 1968). 3 See Murray v.

Keerins v. Schiedler

132 Or. App. 560 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 1, 1995

Brown v. Baldwin, supra, 131 Or App at 360 . 2 In the light of our decision in Brown v. Baldwin, supra, we conclude that the court here erred in dismissing as untimely petitioner’s claim for post-conviction relief. … Brown v. Baldwin, supra, 131 Or App at 360-61 .

Hughes v. Helzer

182 Or. 205 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1947

You come back here and board, just the same as you are downtown.” That was what was done. He paid $15 a week as board for himself and the boy. … It cannot be said that the cestui que trust is the equitable owner of the new form of property: Cutler v. Tuttle, 19 N. J. Eq. 561; Ferris v. Van Vechten, 73 N. Y. 120 ; and Browne on the Statute of Frauds, §86.”

Kepl v. Manzanita Corporation

246 Or. 170 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1967

State ex rel Hudson v. Weiss, 237 Or 358 , 391 P2d 608 (1964). … Western Athletic Club v. Thompson, 169 Or 514, 516, 517 , 129 P2d 828 (1942).

Streby v. State Industrial Accident Commission

107 Or. 314 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 1, 1923

Citing In re Kasson, 119 Cal. 489 ( 51 Pac. 706 ); Brown v. Goodyear, 29 Neb. 376 (45 N. W. 618); Freeman v. Burks, 16 Neb. 328 ( 20 N. W. 207 ). The authors here refer to Section 639, 3 C. … L., provides the method of appeal from the action taken by the board of equalization under the revenue law of the state.

Foote v. State

364 Or. 558 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 28, 2019

And plaintiffs purport to find support for that reading of Brown in TVKO v. Howland , 335 Or. 527 , 73 P.3d 905 (2003). … See, e.g. , Brown v.

State v. Trujillo

271 Or. App. 785 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 17, 2015

He contended that Bessett “has not met the Brown /O’Key standards.” State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984); State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285 , 899 P2d 663 (1995). … State v.

State v. Riley

365 Or. 44 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 31, 2019

Little , 402 S.W.3d 202 , 212 (Tenn. 2013) ; Peeler v. State , 326 Ark. 423 , 428, 932 S.W.2d 312 (1996) ; see also Brown v. State , 281 Md. 241 , 245-46, 378 A.2d 1104 (Ct. … Brown , 113 Or. 149 , 155, 231 P. 926 (1925) ; State v. Long et al ., 113 Or. 309 , 311-12, 231 P. 963 (1925). See Wigmore, 7 Evidence § 2056 at 414.

Greb v. BD. OF COM'RS FOR CTY. OF KLAMATH

32 Or. App. 39 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 16, 1978

See, Link v. City of Coos Bay, 23 Or App 648 , 543 P2d 1082 (1975). The Board is not bound by the commission’s recommendations even if supported by substantial evidence. Pohrman v. … As we stated *44 in Marracci v.

The Estate of Beverly Ann Brown v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 15, 2021

Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997)). … Davis v. Heckler, 868 F.2d 323, 326 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Martinez v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 771, 772 (9th Cir. 1986)).

State v. Cornell

109 Or. App. 396 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 1991

State v. O’Brien, supra. Without further detailing it, we conclude that there was evidence to support the trial court’s ruling that defendant conspired with Pinnell to rob Brown and, later, to rob Ruffner. … The criteria for determining admission of evidence of other crimes to prove identity was discussed by the Supreme Court regarding the Brown robbery in State v. Pinnell, supra.

Coopman v. City of Eugene

327 Or. App. 6 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 12, 2023

Land Use Board of Appeals 2022056; A180682 534 P3d 1105 Petitioners seek review of a final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) that rejected their challenge … See Stop the Dump Coalition v.

Taylor v. SAIF Corp. (In re Taylor)

295 Or. App. 199 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 5, 2018

Orders of the board must be supported by substantial reason. Long v. SAIF , 278 Or. App. 88 , 93, 372 P.3d 610 (2016) ; Hamilton v. Pacific Skyline, Inc. , 266 Or. App. 676 , 680, 338 P.3d 791 (2014). … See *422 Schoch v.

Merrifield v. McClay

72 Or. 90 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1914

A. 206); Brown v. Norman, 65 Miss. 369 ( 4 South. 293 , 7 Am. St. Rep. 663 ). But such is not the invariable rule even in actions at law: Brown v. Norman, supra. … Cas. 246 ; Brown v. Norman, 65 Miss. 369 ( 4 South. 293 , 7 Am. St. Rep. 663 ); Scott v. Perrin, 7 Ky. (4 Bibb) 360 .

State v. Sampson

167 Or. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 24, 2000

In State v. … Accord People v.

Acuna v. SAIF

346 Or. App. 29 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 2025

Again, however, the board did not articulate how those factors weighed in its conclusion. See Taylor v. … The board provided a reasonable basis for its decision. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v.

Buck v. Mueller

221 Or. 271 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1960

Leslie v. Brown Bros. Incorporation, 208 Cal 606, 283 P 936 (1929); Reichert v. … Collas v. Brown, 211 Ala 443, 100 So 769 (1924); Murray v. Bateman, 315 Mass 113, 51 NE2d 954 (1943); Levene et ux v. City of Salem, 191 Or 182 , 229 P2d 255 (1951); Texas & P. Ry. Co. v.

Day v. Saunders

270 Or. 432 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1974

The board of directors were listed as Reiss, Saunders and Saunders’s wife. … See ORS 59.115 and Brown v. Cole, 155 Tex 624, 291 SW2d 704, 708 (1956).

Allstate Insurance v. Browning

598 F. Supp. 421 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 12, 1983

See also, Nielsen v. St. Paul Cos., 283 Or. 277 , 583 P.2d 545 (1978). … Even though coverage is excluded under the policy, Allstate may still have a duty to defend the Brownings, if withdrawal would prejudice Brownings. United Pacific Insurance v.