Case law

Lovelace v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

168 Or. App. 700 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 2000

Petitioner argues that the result of the rule is that no Board order is truly final. … determination of the issues before the Board.

Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Board of County Commissioners

243 Or. App. 298 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 1, 2011

In Davis v. … Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 237 Or App 149, 152 , 238 P3d 1016 (2010), rev allowed, 349 Or 602 (2011).

Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation v. Board of Higher Education

245 Or. App. 713 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 2011

In Starrett v. … More recently, in Doe v.

Jancsek v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

162 Or. App. 96 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 4, 1999

the Board to increase his sentence by more than one standard variation, or 36 months. … Because the Board’s size changed after the rule’s repeal in 1988, there was no opportunity or reason to change those precise numbers in the rale. The Board could not amend a repealed rule.

Board of Commissioners v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

29 Or. App. 909 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 1977

This is an appeal by the Board of Commissioners of Coos Comity (County) from an order of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).

J. L. Ward Co. v. Landscape Contractors Board

142 Or. App. 438 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 31, 1996

Ward Co. v. Landscape Contractors Board, 141 Or App 181 , 916 P2d 887 (1996). We allow the motion, modify our opinion and adhere to it as modified. … See, e.g., Rhorer v.

DeCouteau v. SAIF Corp.

86 Or. App. 502 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 22, 1987

In reversing the referee, the Board examined neither the rule nor the cases, as Brown requires that it do. Instead, it applied a broadly formulated rule that it had adopted in a prior Board decision. … “Accordingly, we must reverse and remand to the Board for reconsideration under the appropriate law. A decision about ‘good cause’ is for the Board to make in the first instance. Brown v.

SAIF Corp. v. Curtis

107 Or. App. 625 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 1991

In 1980, when our review of workers’ compensation cases was de novo, the Supreme Court said, in Brown v. … Court’s comment in Brown.

Oregonian Publishing Co. v. Oregon State Board of Parole

95 Or. App. 501 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 8, 1989

See City of Portland v. Rice, 94 Or App 292, 295 , 765 P2d 228 (1988). … That is a legislative clarification of the application of ORS 192.690 to PSRB *507 and is consistent with this decision. 6 See Kaiser Cement v. Tax Com., 250 Or 374, 378 , 443 P2d 233 (1968); see also Layman v.

Union Oil Co. v. Clackamas County Board of Commissioners

67 Or. App. 27 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 22, 1984

Defendants appeal a judgment reversing a determination by the Board of County Commissioners of Clackamas County that plaintiff did not have a “vested right” to build a service station in violation of county land use regulations … For a discussion of liability for failure to give notice, see Universal Ideas v. Linn County, 64 Or App 805 , 669 P2d 1165 (1983).

Henderson v. Employment Division

22 Or. App. 378 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 1975

This unemployment compensation case involves the same basic issue as Evjen v. Employment Division, 22 Or App 372 , 539 P2d 662 (1975); Brown v. Employment Division, 22 Or App 382 , 539 P2d 666 (1975); and Bird v. … The Employment Appeals Board reversed on this ground. Absent an explanation of this fact, the Employment Appeals Board action would have been correct. See, Brown and Bird .

Gordon v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

207 Or. App. 435 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 23, 2006

App. 435 GORDON v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION. OREGON COURT OF APPEALS. August 23, 2006. Case affirmed without opinion.

Blacknall v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

221 Or. App. 200 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 16, 2008

The board revoked petitioner’s parole and ordered a future disposition hearing. … Petitioner later requested that the board reconsider its revocation order; the board agreed to do so and, in May 2005, it held a revocation hearing.

Mueller v. Cupp

45 Or. App. 495 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 24, 1980

Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, supra, at 28. … Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, supra, at 28.

Clay v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

218 Or. App. 229 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 2008

App. 229 CLAY v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION. No. A129816 Court of Appeals of Oregon. February 20, 2008. Affirmed without opinion.

Gruszczynski v. State of Oregon Board of Higher Education

106 Or. App. 260 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 6, 1991

Respondents contend that the Board’s action was not an “order,” because petitioner was an employee of the Board. … All employees of the state system of higher education, including EOSC, are employees of the Board. ORS 351.070(1)(a); ORS 352.002; Papadopoulos v.

Hale v. State

259 Or. App. 379 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 14, 2013

TVKO v. Howland, 335 Or 527, 534 , 73 P3d 905 (2003); Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 449 , 648 P2d 1289 (1982). … Board of Education, 347 US 483 , 74 S Ct 686 , 98 L Ed 873 (1954). That is not the law. See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1, 18 , 78 S Ct 1401 , 3 L Ed 2d 5 (1958) (decision in Brown binds nonparties such as Ohio officials).

Carter v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

223 Or. App. 745 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 12, 2008

Because we conclude that the board’s order is supported by substantial evidence and that the board is not required to state the reasons for its decision, we affirm. … See Weidner v. Armenakis, 154 Or App 12, 19-20 , 959 P2d 623 , vac’d and rent’d, 327 Or 317 (1998), dismissed by order, July 13, 1998, reasoning readopted and reaffirmed in Merrill v.

Central School District 13J v. State Board of Education

91 Or. App. 308 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 1988

Jackson v. Dept. of Rev., 298 Or 633 , 695 P2d 923 (1985); Central School (Beaman I) v. Marion District, supra. … The Fuller remonstrance was premature because it preceded the final order of the Polk County District Boundary Board. As we noted in Central School (Beaman I) v.

Center for Tribal Water Advocacy v. Board of Commissioners

222 Or. App. 212 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 3, 2008