Case law

Redmond School District No. 2J v. Public Employe Relations Board

19 Or. App. 212 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 14, 1974

The Redmond School District appeals from an order of the Public Employe Relations Board (PERB) directing the School District to reopen labor negotiations with the Redmond Education Association prior to the termination date

Oregon Ass'n of Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners

260 Or. App. 676 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 2014

See State v. … State v. Perry, 336 Or 49, 53 , 77 P3d 313 (2003); see also Hopkins v.

Hutton v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd.

293 Or. App. 804 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 29, 2018

Baize v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

206 Or. App. 548 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 2006

The board argues that it was not obligated to conduct the aggravated murder review hearing in compliance with the APA requirements for the conduct of contested case hearings. In Larsen v. … Since the filing of the briefs in this case, we decided that issue adversely to petitioner in Davis v.

Escalderon v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

229 Or. App. 174 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 17, 2009

*175 PER CURIAM Petitioner seeks reconsideration of our decision in Escalderon v. … Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 227 Or App 506 , 206 P3d 286 (2009), asserting that we improperly awarded costs to respondent. We allow reconsideration and, based on Blacknall v.

Guzek v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

222 Or. App. 81 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 20, 2008

The board set a new parole consideration date of February 28, 2007. Petitioner sought administrative review of the board’s order, and the board denied relief. … The statute and rule do not require any findings when the board decides not to establish a release date. We interpreted ORS 144.228 and OAR 255-036-0005 to the same effect in Colby v.

Castillo v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

203 Or. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 4, 2006

V. L. Y. v. Board of Parole, 338 Or 44 , 106 P3d 145 (2005).

Martinez v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

230 Or. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 5, 2009

App. 245 Ernest Raymond MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. A133672. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted July 2, 2009. Decided August 5, 2009. Walter J. … Fleming v. Board of Parole, 225 Or.App. 578 , 202 P.3d 209 , rev. allowed, 346 Or. 361 , 211 P.3d 930 (2009).

Guzek v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

201 Or. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 2005

See Anderson v. … Under those circumstances, we must remand for the board to reconsider its decision. See, e.g., Smith v.

Maney v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

210 Or. App. 351 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 27, 2006

The Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision conducted an aggravated murder review hearing. … Petitioner now seeks judicial review, arguing that the board erred in failing to conduct the hearing in accordance with the contested case procedures required by ORS 163.105(3). The state concedes that, under Larsen v.

Gray v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

207 Or. App. 530 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2006

Larsen v. Board of Parole, 206 Or App 353 , 138 P3d 16 (2006).

Brusco Towboat Co. v. State ex rel. State Land Board

31 Or. App. 491 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 17, 1977

First, the Board argues that the estoppel principles which we held limit the Board’s power to revoke the riparian license to erect navigational structures should not operate in favor of the plaintiff port districts and against … Co. v. City of Portland, 14 Or 188, 193 , 12 P 265 , 58 Am R 299 (1886), and for similar reasons are entitled to the protection of the doctrine of estoppel in this setting.

Wilcox v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

197 Or. App. 623 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 2005

Finally, the board contends that, consistently with Shelby v. … Bartz v.

Jackson v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

224 Or. App. 171 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 2008

ORS 144.335(1) limits judicial review to final orders of the board. As the Supreme Court explained in Mastriano v. … Board of Parole, 342 Or 684, 686 , 159 P3d 1151 (2007), “a board order denying reopening and reconsideration of an earlier final order is not itself a final order for purposes of judicial review pursuant to ORS 144.335(1)

Peck v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

221 Or. App. 700 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 13, 2008

App. 700 Walter Carl PECK, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. A129393. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted June 27, 2008. Decided August 13, 2008. Irene B. … Cole v. Board of Parole, 220 Or.App. 362 , 186 P.3d 321 (2008).

In Re Harris v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education

145 Or. App. 477 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1996

*478 PER CURIAM Defendant, Oregon State Board of Higher Education (the Board), appeals a circuit court judgment reversing the Board’s order that held that plaintiff did not meet the residency requirements that would qualify … United Citizens v. Oregon Environmental Quality Comm., 104 Or App 51 , 799 P2d 665 (1990), rev den 311 Or 151 (1991).

Mendoza v. SAIF Corp.

123 Or. App. 349 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 22, 1993

Brown v. EBI Companies, 289 Or 455, 458 , 616 P2d 457 (1980); Seker-mestrovich v. SAIF, 280 Or 723, 727 , 573 P2d 275 (1977); Anderson v. … See also EBI Companies v. Lorence, 72 Or App 75 , 695 P2d 61 , rev den 299 Or 118 (1985). 2 In Brown v.

Elliott v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

221 Or. App. 699 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 13, 2008

App. 699 Anthony Blake ELLIOTT, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. A127739. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted June 27, 2008. Decided August 13, 2008. Irene B. … Cole v. Board of Parole, 220 Or.App. 362 , 186 P.3d 321 (2008).

Tri-Met, Inc. v. Odighizuwa

112 Or. App. 159 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 18, 1992

In Brown v. … See Brown v. Argonaut Insurance Company, supra, 93 Or App at 592 . Claimant does not contend that employer here ever had obtained that sort of information. 4 In Colvin v.

Pierce v. Board of Parole

345 Or. App. 135 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 19, 2025

Additionally, the substantial evidence standard requires that the board’s orders be based on substantial reason. See Martin v. … to determine 138 Pierce v.