Case law

Taylor v. Board of Parole

346 Or. App. 858 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 4, 2026

In her second assignment of error, she contends that the board erred by deferring her next review hearing for three years. We affirm. We review the board’s order for substantial evi- dence and reason. Castro v. … The remainder of petitioner’s arguments on both her first and second assignments of error also do not provide 860 Taylor v. Board of Parole a basis for reversal of the board’s order.

Moret v. Board of Parole

343 Or. App. 600 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 24, 2025

See Tuckenberry v. … ’s statutory authority,” and (3) it would likely have been “futile” for the inmate to raise the issue before the board); see also Jacobs v.

Walker v. Board of Parole

337 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 2024

Crombie v. … Penn v. Board of Parole, 365 Or 607, 635, 451 P3d 589 (2019). See Weems/Roberts v.

Al-Wadud v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

221 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 19, 2008

App. 177 AL-WADUD v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION. Court of Appeals of Oregon. November 19, 2008. Affirmed without opinion.

Barrett v. Board of Parole

336 Or. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 14, 2024

Affirmed. 216 Barrett v. Board of Parole SHORR, P. J. In 1994, petitioner robbed a convenience store and shot and killed the store clerk. State v. … Barrett v. Board of Parole, 332 Or App 463, 466, 549 P3d 12 (2024) (concluding that the board lacked authority under the circumstances to sum and unsum petitioner’s sentences).

Muffett v. State Accident Insurance Fund

58 Or. App. 684 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 1982

The Board refused to remand but agreed to consider the exhibit in its review of the case. 1 Remand by the Board to *687 the referee is a matter of discretion. See Holmes v. … Willamette Industries, 56 Or App 763 , 643 P2d 390 (1982); Brown v. SAIF, 51 Or App 389 , 625 P2d 1351 (1981); Penifold v. SAIF, 49 Or App 1015 , 621 P2d 646 (1980).

Schommer v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp. (In re Schommer)

294 Or. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 19, 2018

the board under either ORS 656.382(2) 1 or ORS 656.386(1) ; 2 and (4) further concluded that, because insurer, and not claimant, had initiated the appeal before the board, under Shoulders v. … Brown , 40 Van Natta 879 (1988). On reconsideration, claimant contends that a fee under that statute is mandatory when a claimant prevails on Board review, and asserts that our decision in Brown was wrongly decided.

Boorman v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

197 Or. App. 620 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 16, 2005

First, petitioner argues that the board did not provide her with notice and a hearing before designating her a PSO as required by Noble v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 485 , 964 P2d 990 (1998). … Second, petitioner argues that the board’s designation of her as a PSO violated ex post facto principles. We affirm.

Walker v. Board of Parole

337 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 2024

Crombie v. … Penn v. Board of Parole, 365 Or 607, 635, 451 P3d 589 (2019). See Weems/Roberts v.

Barrett v. Board of Parole

336 Or. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 14, 2024

Affirmed. 216 Barrett v. Board of Parole SHORR, P. J. In 1994, petitioner robbed a convenience store and shot and killed the store clerk. State v. … Barrett v. Board of Parole, 332 Or App 463, 466, 549 P3d 12 (2024) (concluding that the board lacked authority under the circumstances to sum and unsum petitioner’s sentences).

Mercer v. Employment Division

63 Or. App. 757 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 1983

It’s not real healthy anyway to — you know, to use that. * * *” Petitioner also explained, concerning the brown-mill glove: *761 “* * * I do have — there was one glove that — a brown-milled glove that I only reacted to not … See, e.g., Bremer v. Employment Division, 47 Or App 1131 , 615 P2d 1170 (1980). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Hartwell v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

272 Or. App. 332 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 22, 2015

The board argues in response that we must defer to its interpretation of the rule, because its interpretation is “plausible.” Don't Waste Oregon Com. v. … See, e.g., Swarthout v.

Finch v. Stayton Canning Co.

93 Or. App. 168 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 14, 1988

In Brown v. SAIF, 79 Or App 205 , 717 P2d 1289 , rev den 301 Or 666 (1986), the claimant was concerned about his health because he was exposed to asbestos at work. … In both Brown and Johnsen , we refused to hold compensable the claims for diagnostic medical services. In Collins v.

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.

La Pine Pumice Co. v. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners

75 Or. App. 691 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 1985

See Coats v. LCDC, 67 Or App 504 , 679 P2d 898 (1984). OAR 660-16-010(1) permits the complete exclusion of conflicting uses, presumably including conflicting uses of other Goal 5 resources, from a resource site. … But see Coats v. LCDC, supra, 67 Or App at 510-11 . The goal may dictate that a conflict resolution mechanism be applied to each new potentially conflicting use as it becomes known.

Najjar v. Safeway, Inc.

203 Or. App. 486 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 28, 2005

Payless Drug Stores v. Brown, 300 Or 243, 246-47 , 708 P2d 1143 (1985). Relying on Stromme v. … See, e.g., Brown v. Washington County, 163 Or App 362, 375 , 987 P2d 1254 (1999), rev den, 331 Or 191 (2000).

EBI Companies v. Lorence

72 Or. App. 75 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 6, 1985

In Sekermestrovich v. … In Brown v. EBI Companies, 289 Or 455 , 616 P2d 457 (1980), the claimant telephoned her attorney and *78 informed him that she had received a denial letter.

Oregon Fire/Police Retirement Committee v. Oregon Public Employes' Retirement Board

62 Or. App. 777 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 1983

Co-Oper. v. Dept. of Rev., 273 Or 539 , 542 P2d 900 (1975). … Gregor v. City of Portland, 126 Or 49, 54 , 268 P 743 (1928). PERB, in setting specific guidelines, has erected adequate safeguards against erroneous action. See Meyer v.

Lovelace v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

188 Or. App. 432 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 26, 2003

Petitioner argues that the rule exceeds the board’s authority granted under ORS 144.223. … Or Const, Art I, §§ 8, 12; US Const, Amends I, V. We have previously rejected petitioner’s statutory argument in Gholston v. Palmateer, 183 Or App 7 , 51 P3d 617 (2002).

Jenkins v. Board of Parole

341 Or. App. 134 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 4, 2025

In 2021, petitioner’s sentence was commuted by Governor Kate Brown. … See Marteeny v. Brown, 321 Or App 250, 291, 517 P3d 343, rev den, 370 Or 303 (2022) (explaining effect of commutation).