Case law

Marsh v. State Board of Parole

33 Or. App. 97 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 1, 1978

Bonney v. OSP, 270 Or 79 , 526 P2d 1020 (1974); Sterling v. Bd. of Parole, 16 Or App 481, 493 , 519 P2d 1047 , rev den (1974) (specially concurring opinion).

Board of Directors v. Employment Division

28 Or. App. 783 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 21, 1977

This is a petition for review of a decision of the Employment Appeals Board (EAB) which granted claimant unemployment benefits. … ORS 183.482(8) (d); Wilton v. Employment Div., 26 Or App 549 , 553 P2d 1071 (1976).

Mitchell v. Public Employes' Retirement Board

28 Or. App. 339 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 31, 1977

This appeal from a denial of disability retirement benefits by the Public Employes’ Retirement Board (PERB) presents similar facts and identical legal issues to those in Hoskinson v. … Therefore, PERB did not err in failing to consider it and, as in Hoskinson , we will not interfere on review with the Board’s resolution of conflicting evidence. Affirmed.

Allison v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

47 Or. App. 1029 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 1980

Petitioner raises certain constitutional issues in his appeal which were not raised before the Board. We decline to consider them. See State v. Zusman, 1 Or App 268 , 460 P2d 872 (1969), rev den (1970). Affirmed.

South of Sunnyside Neighborhood League v. Board of Commissioners

27 Or. App. 647 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 13, 1976

THE PROPER LEGAL STANDARDS In Green v. … If Green v.

Wagy v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

146 Or. App. 388 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 1997

Kessler v. Board of Parole, 145 Or App 584 , 931 P2d 801 (1997).

Gordon v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

218 Or. App. 374 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 5, 2008

Gordon v. Board of Parole, 343 Or 618 , 175 P3d 461 (2007).

Interiano v. SAIF

315 Or. App. 588 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 2021

Claimant asserts that “courts have never employed a ‘two medical problem’ legal analysis to establish the existence of a combined condition,” and that Brown v. … Brown, 361 Or at 251 (emphasis omitted); see also Hopkins v.

Corgain v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

196 Or. App. 323 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 24, 2004

Roy v. Palmateer, 194 Or App 330 , 95 P3d 1124 (2004).

STATE EX REL. JENKINS v. Board of Parole

205 Or. App. 111 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 29, 2006

JENKINS v. BOARD OF PAROLE Oregon Court of Appeals. March 29, 2006. Case affirmed without opinion.

K-MART v. Evenson

167 Or. App. 46 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 3, 2000

Employer cites to our decisions in Brown v. SAIF, 79 Or App 205 , 717 P2d 1289 , rev den 301 Or 666 (1986), and Johnsen v. Hamilton Electric, 90 Or App 161 , 751 P2d 246 (1988), as supporting its position. … As we later explained, the decision in Brown merely stands for the proposition that “[t]he fact that one has sought medical services does not [alone] establish that one has a compensable injury.” Barkley v.

Delavega v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

222 Or. App. 161 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 3, 2008

in Gaynor v. … See State v.

Kowalski v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

194 Or. App. 156 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2004

Haskins v. Palmateer, 186 Or App 159, 165 , 63 P3d 31 , rev den, 335 Or 510 (2003). The board’s authority over the offender extended until the end of the indeterminate sentence imposed by the court. … Gaynor v. Board of Parole, 165 Or App 609, 612 , 996 P2d 1020 (2000).

Board of Commissioners v. Department of Land Conservation & Development

35 Or. App. 725 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 8, 1978

Accordingly, LCDC vacated the order granting the zone change and remanded it to the County Board of Commissioners for reconsideration. … See Green v. Hayward, supra; [ 275 Or 693 , 552 P2d 815 (1976)]; Fasano v. Washington County Comm., supra, [ 7 Or App 176 , 489 P2d 693 (1972) aff'd 264 Or 574 , 507 P2d 23 (1973);] Home Plate, Inc. v.

Long v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

189 Or. App. 56 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 30, 2003

In making that determination, the board uses a risk assessment scale approved by the Department of Corrections. See ORS 181.585(2); V. L. Y. v. Board of Parole, 188 Or App 617 , 72 P3d 993 (2003). … See Connecticut Department of Public Safety v.

School District No. 48 v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board

14 Or. App. 634 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 8, 1973

Ward v. Ore. State Board of Nursing, 266 Or 128 , 510 P2d 554 (1973); Bay v. State Board of Education, 233 Or 601 , 378 P2d 558 , 96 ALR2d 529 (1963); Board of Medical Examiners v. … See Maeder Steel Products Co. v.

Amazon Cooperating Tenants v. State Board of Higher Education

15 Or. App. 418 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 1973

Petitioner appeals as from an order in a contested case under ORS 183.480 (2) from an administrative act of respondent Board, acting through its delegee, establishing rental rates at a housing project for married students … Martin v. Harrison, 182 Or 121 , 180 P2d 119 (1947), Moe v. Pratt, 178 Or 320 , 166 P2d 479 (1946), we would prefer that necessary assertions be brought before us in the form of supporting affidavit.

Oregon State Board of Higher Education v. Washington County

52 Or. App. 369 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 26, 1981

The application of these statutes has previously been discussed in Sisters of Charity v. Washington Co., 244 Or 499 , 419 P2d 36 (1966), and Mercy Hospital v. Douglas Co., 28 Or App 557 , 559 P2d 1286 (1977). … Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L Ed 2d 694 , 10 ALR3d 974 (1966).

Palacios v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

132 Or. App. 243 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 4, 1995

See Roof v. Board of Parole, 85 Or App 188 , 736 P2d 193 (1987); Hill v. Board of Parole, 85 Or App 215 , 735 P2d 1301 (1987). … Williams v. Board of Parole, supra, 112 Or App at 113 .

Lovelace v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

188 Or. App. 35 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 29, 2003

The board’s interpretation of its rules is consistent with their wording and, thus, it is plausible. Accordingly, we defer to that interpretation on review. See Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. … See also Rodriguez v. Board of Parole, 187 Or App 282, 293-94 , 67 P3d 970 (2003) (petitioner need show only one substantial question of law to prevail on motion for leave to proceed).