The case involved proceedings by the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners to revoke Dr. George H. Buck's license to practice medicine based on multiple counts alleging that he performed an abortion on a patient in October 1943. The circuit court reversed the Board's revocation order after determining that the complaints failed to state sufficient grounds and that one count was barred by a three-year filing deadline. On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ruling that the amended complaint related back to the date of the original filing and therefore was timely, and that its allegations of unprofessional conduct through procuring an abortion described conduct that could authorize license revocation if proven. The court directed the circuit court to proceed to a trial on the merits of the appeal from the Board's decision.
This case involved an appeal from a probate court order appointing a guardian for the estate of Hazel Hampson, an incompetent adult with substantial property. After initially appointing a conservator, the trial court selected Holger Christoffersen, a deputy sheriff and friend of the ward, over her sister Alma Bloch Shaw, despite the sister's petition supported by next of kin. The appellate court reversed the appointment, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by selecting a court officer as guardian and by failing to give appropriate preference to the ward's next of kin under statutes governing qualifications for guardians and administrators. The court appointed the sister as guardian instead, emphasizing that the relationship to the ward and avoidance of conflicts with court officers should guide such decisions.
This case involved a declaratory judgment action by registered voters challenging the validity of a special election to consolidate two school districts in Clatsop County, Oregon. The plaintiffs alleged three causes of action based on election irregularities: polls opening and closing early, which prevented one voter from casting a ballot that would have created a tie; improper denial of another voter's right to vote without administering required oaths; and denial of voting rights to seven other individuals without proper oath procedures or record-keeping. The trial court dismissed the first and third causes of action and, after trial, upheld the election's validity on the second cause. On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the second and third causes but reversed the dismissal of the first cause of action, remanding it for further hearing because the alleged early closing could have altered the outcome.
The case involved building contractors who sued the owner of a fruit-packing plant for the unpaid balance claimed under a written construction contract, basing their action on an account stated rather than the contract itself. The contract required the contractors to obtain an architect's certificate as a condition precedent before recovering payments beyond monthly installments, and the final certificate was never issued despite repeated requests. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment for the contractors, ruling that absent any allegation or proof that the certificate was procured or the requirement waived, recovery on an account stated was unavailable. The court emphasized that the evidence showed the owner never assented to the contractors' final estimate without the architect's approval and that the parties understood liability depended on the certificate.
In this post-divorce custody modification case, the father sought and obtained a trial court order granting him sole custody of the parties' young daughter and eliminating the mother's visitation rights, based on evidence that the mother's visits caused the child emotional distress and fear. The appellate court affirmed the award of exclusive custody to the father, finding that the mother had not met her burden to show a change in circumstances warranting a custody shift and that the child's best interests were served by remaining in the stable home environment provided by the father and his new wife. However, the court reversed the complete denial of visitation, holding that the mother should retain limited rights to visit the child once per month at a designated home under conditions including advance notice, exclusion of her new husband, and no interference by the father, with the trial court empowered to adjust the terms if needed for the child's welfare.
The case involved a dispute over the estate of Imogen Bussell, where plaintiff Marie Tiggelbeck sought specific enforcement of an alleged oral contract in which Imogen promised to leave her all her property in exchange for Marie continuing to live with her, providing companionship and services, and abandoning plans to take a higher-paying job. The trial court ruled in favor of Marie, impressing a trust on the estate assets held by the administratrix and heirs, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the evidence sufficiently established the oral agreement, that Marie had fully performed her obligations by altering her career and living arrangements, and that the unique nature of the services rendered justified equitable relief rather than damages at law.
