case falls within rule in Oregon

1875We are all clearly of the opinion that the act of October 29, 1874, is in violation of the provisions of our Constitution, last above referred to, and that this case falls within the rule recognized by this Court in the case of The City of Portland v. Stock ( 2 Or. 69 ), and that it does not come within any of the exceptions to the rule as recognized in the cases of Bird v. Wasco County ( 3 Or. 282 ); Fleischner v. Chadwick (ante, 000); and Grant County v. Sels (ante, 000).

1874(Cooley’s Const. Lim. 150; 13 Mich. 496 ; 15 Ohio (N. S.) 573; 6 Ind. 41 ; 16 Ind. 497 ; 47 Mo. 29 .) It is claimed by the appellant that this case falls within the rule laid down in the case of the City of Portland v. Stark ( 2 Or. 69 ).

2015As we stated in State v. Molver, 233 Or App 239, 244 , 225 P3d 136 (2010), although ordinarily an indictment that “tracks the pertinent wording of the statute defining the crime” will withstand a demurrer, “an exception exists where discovery is unlikely to inform the defendant of the specific criminal conduct that the state intends to prove.” As defendant argues, this case falls within the exception.

2015As we stated in State v. Molver, 233 Or App 239, 244 , 225 P3d 136 (2010), although ordinarily an indictment that “tracks the pertinent wording of the statute defining the crime” will withstand a demurrer, “an exception exists where discovery is unlikely to inform the defendant of the specific criminal conduct that the state intends to prove.” As defendant argues, this case falls within the exception.

2000In Hearn and Hearn, 128 Or App 259, 264 , 875 P2d 508 (1994), we explained that “ ‘short of a conflict with the statutory powers of the court,’ it is the responsibility of the trial court “ ‘to discover and give effect to the intent of the parties as reflected in the incorporated settlement agreement.’ “* * * By way of contrast, * * * a stipulation that deprives the court of its authority to modify an award even when changed circumstances would require such a modification should not be approved.” Id. at 264 (quoting McDonnal and McDonnal, 293 Or 772, 779 , 652 P2d 1247 (1982)) (citation omitte

2000In Hearn and Hearn, 128 Or App 259, 264 , 875 P2d 508 (1994), we explained that “ ‘short of a conflict with the statutory powers of the court,’ it is the responsibility of the trial court “ ‘to discover and give effect to the intent of the parties as reflected in the incorporated settlement agreement.’ “* * * By way of contrast, * * * a stipulation that deprives the court of its authority to modify an award even when changed circumstances would require such a modification should not be approved.” Id. at 264 (quoting McDonnal and McDonnal, 293 Or 772, 779 , 652 P2d 1247 (1982)) (citation omitte

2000In Hearn and Hearn, 128 Or App 259, 264 , 875 P2d 508 (1994), we explained that “ ‘short of a conflict with the statutory powers of the court,’ it is the responsibility of the trial court “ ‘to discover and give effect to the intent of the parties as reflected in the incorporated settlement agreement.’ “* * * By way of contrast, * * * a stipulation that deprives the court of its authority to modify an award even when changed circumstances would require such a modification should not be approved.” Id. at 264 (quoting McDonnal and McDonnal, 293 Or 772, 779 , 652 P2d 1247 (1982)) (citation omitte

2000In Hearn and Hearn, 128 Or App 259, 264 , 875 P2d 508 (1994), we explained that “ ‘short of a conflict with the statutory powers of the court,’ it is the responsibility of the trial court “ ‘to discover and give effect to the intent of the parties as reflected in the incorporated settlement agreement.’ “* * * By way of contrast, * * * a stipulation that deprives the court of its authority to modify an award even when changed circumstances would require such a modification should not be approved.” Id. at 264 (quoting McDonnal and McDonnal, 293 Or 772, 779 , 652 P2d 1247 (1982)) (citation omitte

1978I joined in the dissent in State v. Derryberry, supra. Also, in my concurring opinion in Rhodes v. Harwood, 273 Or 903 , 544 P2d 147 (1975), I again asserted that it was my opinion that this court should adopt Rule 63(1) of the Proposed Uniform Rules of Evidence.

1978I joined in the dissent in State v. Derryberry, supra. Also, in my concurring opinion in Rhodes v. Harwood, 273 Or 903 , 544 P2d 147 (1975), I again asserted that it was my opinion that this court should adopt Rule 63(1) of the Proposed Uniform Rules of Evidence.

1978The evidence received in this case falls within the rule proposed by the dissent of Chief Justice O'Connell in State v. Derryberry, 270 Or. 482, 492 , 528 P.2d 1034 (1974), and would have been admissible under that dissent.

1978The evidence received in this case falls within the rule proposed by the dissent of Chief Justice O'Connell in State v. Derryberry, 270 Or. 482, 492 , 528 P.2d 1034 (1974), and would have been admissible under that dissent.

1978He Hi This case falls within the rule enunciated in Gordon Creek Tree Farms v. Layne et al, 230 Or 204, 220 , 358 P2d 1062 , 368 P2d 737 (1962): "* * * Jt is well settled that an employer who orders work to be performed from which, in the natural course of things, injurious consequences must be expected to arise unless means are adopted by which such consequences may be prevented, is bound to see that necessary precautions are taken to prevent injury and such person can not by employing some other person relieve himself of his liability to do what is necessary to prevent the work from becoming

1978He Hi This case falls within the rule enunciated in Gordon Creek Tree Farms v. Layne et al, 230 Or 204, 220 , 358 P2d 1062 , 368 P2d 737 (1962): "* * * Jt is well settled that an employer who orders work to be performed from which, in the natural course of things, injurious consequences must be expected to arise unless means are adopted by which such consequences may be prevented, is bound to see that necessary precautions are taken to prevent injury and such person can not by employing some other person relieve himself of his liability to do what is necessary to prevent the work from becoming

1957Thus this case falls within the rule of a valid contractual consideration as set out in Cummings v. Central Oregon Bank et al., 110 Or 101 , 223 P 236 .

1957Thus this case falls within the rule of a valid contractual consideration as set out in Cummings v. Central Oregon Bank et al., 110 Or 101 , 223 P 236 .

1939Hence, the case falls within the doctrine announced in White v. Ladd, 41 Or. 324, 332 , 68 P. 739 , 93 Am.

1939Hence, the case falls within the doctrine announced in White v. Ladd, 41 Or. 324, 332 , 68 P. 739 , 93 Am.

1875We are all clearly of the opinion that the act of October 29, 1874, is in violation of the provisions of our Constitution, last above referred to, and that this case falls within the rule recognized by this Court in the case of The City of Portland v. Stock ( 2 Or. 69 ), and that it does not come within any of the exceptions to the rule as recognized in the cases of Bird v. Wasco County ( 3 Or. 282 ); Fleischner v. Chadwick (ante, 000); and Grant County v. Sels (ante, 000).

1874(Cooley’s Const. Lim. 150; 13 Mich. 496 ; 15 Ohio (N. S.) 573; 6 Ind. 41 ; 16 Ind. 497 ; 47 Mo. 29 .) It is claimed by the appellant that this case falls within the rule laid down in the case of the City of Portland v. Stark ( 2 Or. 69 ).

1874(Cooley’s Const. Lim. 150; 13 Mich. 496 ; 15 Ohio (N. S.) 573; 6 Ind. 41 ; 16 Ind. 497 ; 47 Mo. 29 .) It is claimed by the appellant that this case falls within the rule laid down in the case of the City of Portland v. Stark ( 2 Or. 69 ).

1858This case falls within the principle settled in the cases of Fitzgerald and Brown v. Gorham, (4 Cal. R., 289; Stewart v. Scannell, 8 Cal., 80 , and Vance v. Boynton, October, 1857.) The present case only differs from the first cited above in the fact that the vendor in that case was immediately employed as a clerk to sell the goods, while in this he was away from the store about one month, and was then employed.