Case law

Crowe v. Albee

87 Or. 148 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1918

In Imperial Water Co. v. … Wulzen v.

State v. Miglavs

Oregon Supreme Court · May 20, 2004

State v. Miglavs , 186 Or App 420 , 63 P3d 1202 (2003). We allowed defendant's petition for review. … See State v.

Beveridge v. Johnson

157 Or. App. 57 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 1998

OAR 255-80-012(3)(c). 4 Applying the reasoning of the dissenting opinion in Murphy v. … Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 US 1 , 99 S Ct 2100 , 60 L Ed 2d 668 (1979). However, once paroled, a parolee has a liberty interest the termination of which is subject to an orderly process. Morrissey v.

State v. Ellison

301 Or. 676 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1986

Earlier, State v. … The two acts did not occur simultaneously, like those in State v. Brown; defendant had been stopped and was no longer driving when he gave the false name.

Lechleidner v. Carson

156 Or. 636 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1937

As said in Garnsey v. … See also Farrow v. Nevin, 44 Or. 496, 500 ( 75 P. 711 ). Again, as said in French v.

State v. Frey

53 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 13, 1981

In support of this distinction, the state argues that the decision in Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. … See State v. Eastman, 51 Or App 723 , 626 P2d 956 (1981).

Cummings v. Employment Department

235 Or. App. 167 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 28, 2010

See Smithee v. … Goin v. Employment Dept., 203 Or App 758, 763 , 126 P3d 734 (2006). The board’s factual findings are discussed above.

Employment Division v. Scott MacHinery Co.

48 Or. App. 61 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 2, 1980

"McPherson v. … Oliver v. Employment Division, 40 Or App 487 , 595 P2d 1252 (1979).

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Maddox

295 Or. 448 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1983

“February 19,1980: Court of Appeals affirms (without opinion) the Board’s order in compensability case. Maddox v. SAIF, 44 Or App 520 , 605 P2d 1391 (1980). … “March 9,1981: Court of Appeals remands compensability case to Board. Maddox v. SAIF, 51 Or App 2 , 624 P2d 643 (1981). *451 “December 7,1981: Board on remand holds claim not compensable.

Delgado v. Souders

146 Or. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 5, 1997

First, he asserts that, although denominated a “civil” proceeding, an action under ORS 30.866 is “criminal in nature” under the rationale of Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 (1977). … But see Megdal v. Board of Dental Examiners, 288 Or 293 , 605 P2d 273 (1980).

Case v. Chambers

210 Or. 680 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1957

Justice Brown’s specially concurring opinion in Smith Securities Co. v. Multnomah County, 98 Or 418, 427-431 , 192 P 654 , 194 P 428 , with Appeal of Kliks, 158 Or 669, 686 , 76 P2d 974 , and Tax Com *696 mission v. … Off v. Morehead, 235 *700 Ill 40, 85 NE 264 ; Frederick v. Dettary, 318 Mich 252 , 28 NW2d 94 ; Swift v. Tempelos, 178 NC 487, 101 SE 8 ; Axtell v. Word (Tex Civ App) 29 SW2d 421 ; Tomforde v.

M&S Market, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

344 Or. 393 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2008

He reiterated that taxpayer had never bought tobacco products from Lil Brown Smoke Shack and had no record of issuing any payments or credits to Lil Brown Smoke Shack. … See Pilgrim Turkey Packers v.

Dunn v. University of Oregon

9 Or. 357 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1881

(Angell and Ames on Corporations, section 76; Thomas v. … Osborn v. The Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat., 738 ; Michigan State Bank v. Hastings, 1 Douglas, [Mich. R.,] 225; Garr v. Bright, 1 Paige Ch., 157 .)

Westfall v. Westfall

100 Or. 224 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1921

BROWN, J. We have set down the facts at some length in the statement for the reason that this case is out of the ordinary. The contradictory statements of plaintiff and defendant raise questions of veracity. … Eq. 412 ( 2 Atl. 376 ); States v. States, 37 N. J. Eq. 195; Foss v. Foss, 12 Allen, 26 ; Crehore v. Crehore, 97 Mass. 330 ( 93 Am. Dec. 98 ); Carris v. Carris, 24 N. J. Eq. 516.”

Khimich v. Employment Dept.

329 Or. App. 715 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 20, 2023

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON NATALYA V. KHIMICH, Petitioner, v. … Also on the brief were Whitney Brown and Stoel Rives LLP. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Lavelle-Hayden v.

Langford v. Langford

262 Or. App. 409 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 2014

Brown v. Roach, 249 Or App 579, 580 , 277 P3d 628 (2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We state the facts consistently with that standard. … Brown, 249 Or App at 583 ; see ORS 30.866(1) - (2). Finally, the petitioner must show that “the contacts, cumulatively, caused her reasonably to fear for her personal safety.” Bryant v.

Alderson v. State of Oregon

105 Or. App. 574 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 13, 1991

In Adams v. … See Martin v. Glenbrook Farms Corp., 110 Or 87, 89 , 222 P 1102 (1924), overruled on unrelated grounds, Broyles v. Brown, 295 Or 795 , 671 P2d 94 (1983); Bartel v. Mathias, 19 Or 482, 488-89 , 24 P 918 (1890).

Nicklaus v. Goodspeed

56 Or. 184 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1910

There is no power granted to the district boundary board to abolish or destroy a district, and where such power is not granted it does not exist. School District v. Palmer, 41 Or. 485 ( 69 Pac. 453 .) … Taylor v. Robertson, 16 Utah, 330 ( 52 Pac. 1 .)

Partlow v. Clark

295 Or. 778 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1983

Temple v. Osburn, supra, was a suit to remove a cloud on 163 acres in Lane County. On January 19,1905, the patent from the United States Government to Texana Brown conveying that land was recorded in the deed records. … Texana Brown was the former wife of S. W. Brown, one of the defendants. On October 7,1905, Texana Brown for a valuable consideration conveyed the land to Minnie B. Temple, the plaintiff.

Beaudry v. Winchester Plywood Company

255 Or. 503 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 13, 1970

Co. v. Cooper, 3 Storey 168 , 53 Del 168, 166 A2d 723 (1960); Giambattista v. Thomas A. Edison, 32 NJ Super 103, 107 A2d 801 (1954); and National Zinc Company v. Hainline, 360 P2d 236 (Okla 1961). … See Matter of Detenbeck v. General Motors Corp., 309 NY 558 , 132 NE2d 840 (1956); Matter of Dorman v. New York State Dept. of Public Works, 22 App Div 2d 725, 253 NYS2d 243 (1964); and Matter of Conroy v.