Case law

Johnson v. Underwood

102 Or. 680 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1922

BROWN, J. 1. Appellant’s assignments numbered 1, 2 and 3, involving a motion for nonsuit, for a directed verdict, and a requested instruction, cover the same ground, thus presenting but one question. … On redirect examination of Irvin, he was asked: “ * * I will ask you to look at this picture, for instance; here is the running-board, which appears to be stove in, in a way; would that necessarily indicate that that running-board

VanSpeybroeck v. Tillamook County

221 Or. App. 677 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 13, 2008

Holland v. … See Lawrence v.

Cascadia Wildlands v. Or. Dep't of State Lands

293 Or. App. 127 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 2018

Dist. et al. v. … See also, e.g ., State Land Board v.

State v. Walters

105 Or. 662 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1922

Finding this place “locked up,” Palmer suggested that he and Thorpe board a street-car “and go around on the street-ear.” Thorpe and Palmer entered a street-car, and the patrol-wagon “went back.” … Brown, J., not sitting.

Shoulders v. SAIF Corp.

300 Or. 606 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1986

SAIF cites Forney v. … In Korter v.

State v. Thompson

57 Or. App. 281 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 1982

In Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. … Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n. 17 [ 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 43 L.Ed.2d 616 ] (1975)." Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977).

Roberts v. SAIF Corp.

341 Or. 48 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2006

See ORS 656.005(7)(b)(B) (stating exclusion). 1 The Workers’ Compensation Board held that the exclusion applied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Roberts v. SAIF, 196 Or App 414 , 102 P3d 752 (2004). … See Vsetecka v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 337 Or 502, 510 , 98 P3d 1116 (2004) (stating interpretative principle).

Coleman v. SAIF

304 Or. App. 122 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 2020

Standard of Review We review the board’s order pursuant to ORS 656.298(7)1 and ORS 183.482(8).2 Atkins v. … Thus, we review the board’s order for legal error and state the facts in accordance with the board’s factual findings, which are convoluted but not disputed. See King v.

State Highway Commission v. Rawson

210 Or. 593 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1957

. *609 In Gouge v. … Defendants cite Girard v. Carson, 22 Colo 345, 44 P 508 , and Sharkey v.

State v. Matischeck

21 Or. App. 300 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 5, 1975

This case is again before us on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749 , 534 P2d 501 (1975). … We adhere to our prior analysis of the prosecutorial-knowledge element of the double-jeopardy test of State v. Brown, 262 Or 442 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972).

Sheldon v. U.S. Bank (In re Comp. of Sheldon)

364 Or. 831 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 23, 2019

The Court of Appeals held that the board applied the wrong standard, vacated the board's decision, and remanded the case to the board to apply the standard in the manner directed by that court. Sheldon v. … See, e.g. , Hamilton v. SAIF , 256 Or.

Broeke v. SAIF

300 Or. App. 91 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 2019

In Spurger v. … See SAIF Corp. v.

SAIF Corp. v. Santos

194 Or. App. 289 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 28, 2004

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (the board) on remand after our decision in Santos v. Caryall Transport, 163 Or App 414 , 987 P2d 1271 (1999) (Santos I). … The board may not award fees if it merely administers the finding of another tribunal, as it did here. We held that a similar board order was merely ministerial in Aguiar v. J. R.

State v. Alexander

44 Or. App. 557 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 19, 1980

That test is set out in State v. Brown, supra, and is used customarily to determine when multiple charges must be joined in a single trial. ORS 131.515(2), supra, note 6; see also State v. … State v. Brown, supra, 262 Or at 446, n 10 . "15.

MacEwan v. HOLM

226 Or. 27 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1961

Disabled Police Veterans Club v. Long, supra. Similarly, the transcribed minutes of a local school board meeting prior to approval by the board were held to be a “public writing” in Conover v. … Board of Education of Nebo School Dist., supra. And in International Union v.

State v. Farley

78 Or. App. 102 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 26, 1986

State v. … Subsequently the holding of Brown was enacted as legislation and codified as ORS 131.515(2). Or Laws 1973, ch 836, §27. In State v.

No Special Rights Committee v. Keisling

312 Or. 459 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1991

ORS 250.085(2). 2 Brown v. Roberts, 309 Or 667, 669 , 791 P2d 488 (1990). We, therefore, dismiss the petition as to the committee. We also dismiss the petition as to Mabon. … Brown v. Roberts, supra, 309 Or at 669 . *462 Petition to review ballot title dismissed.

Davis v. O'Brien

128 Or. App. 428 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 8, 1994

Plaintiff argued that Mills v. Brown, 303 Or 223 , 735 P2d 603 (1987), precluded the jury’s consideration of such evidence and arguments. … Plaintiff objected to this proposed form of judgment, arguing that Mills v. Brown, supra, precluded a reduction of defendants’ liability based on the proportionate fault of a settling joint tortfeasor.

Walker v. State

256 Or. App. 697 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 2013

Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990), and Ailes . The parties’ mutual, threshold assumption in that regard is incorrect. … Until the post-conviction court issued its judgment, petitioner had no reason to know that it would not include findings comporting with ORS 138.640(1). 1 Thus, the issue on appeal, uncomplicated by reference to Brown or

First National Bank v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

127 Or. 147 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1928

The bonds were afterward returned to Brown and given to Mrs. Brown. … J., and Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.