Case law

State v. St. Hilaire

97 Or. App. 108 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 1989

Brown, supra, which sets forth seven factors that must be considered in determining the probative value of scientific evidence. See State v. Milbradt, supra n 3. … However, in admitting the evidence over defendant’s objection about the adequacy of the foundation, the court implicitly found that the Brown requirements were satisfied. See Ball v.

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 evidence 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.

Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Johnson

142 Or. App. 21 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 3, 1996

We next address plaintiffs assertion that the Board erred in concluding that claimant’s injury arose out of his employment. In Kammerer v. … The Board determined that claimant was a victim of his coworker’s horseplay. Employer, relying on Kessen v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DIST. v. Knight

232 Or. App. 660 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 2009

App. 660 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DIST. v. KNIGHT. KNIGHT v. CLACKAMAS COUNTY EX REL. BD. OF COM'RS. Court of Appeals of Oregon. December 16, 2009. Affirmed without opinion.

Anderson v. Publishers Paper Co.

93 Or. App. 516 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 26, 1988

Naught v. Gamble, supra n 2; Cogswell v. SAIF, 74 Or App 234, 237 , 702 P2d 81 (1985). … See Brown v. EBI Companies, 289 Or 455, 457 , 616 P2d 457 (1980); Naught v. Gamble, Inc., 87 Or App 145, 150 , 741 P2d 901 (1987).

Magana-Marquez v. SAIF Corp.

276 Or. App. 32 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 21, 2016

Notwithstanding that factual finding, she relies on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Schleiss v. … See, e.g., Brown v. SAIF, 262 Or App 640, 647-51 , 325 P3d 834 , rev allowed, 356 Or 397 (2014) (generally differentiating between the statutory phrases “compensable injury” and “accepted condition”).

Allen v. SAIF Corp.

279 Or. App. 135 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 2016

For example, in Vasquez v. … Corp., 271 Or App 211, 214 , 350 P3d 470 (2015) (stating that “‘[t]he question is whether claimant’s work-related injury incident is the major contributing cause of the [consequential] condition’” (quoting Brown v.

Ingram v. AMFAC, Inc.

73 Or. App. 197 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 1985

We have held that “forthwith” means within 30 days of the Board’s order. SAIF v. … See Brown v. EBI Companies, 289 Or 905 , 618 P2d 959 (1980); SAIF v. Paresi, 62 Or App 139 , 142 n 1, 660 P2d 684 , rev den 295 Or 259 (1983). She may, however, finally prevail in AMFAC, Inc. v.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Paresi

62 Or. App. 139 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 2, 1983

Paresi v. SAIF, 290 Or 365 , 624 P2d 572 (1981); *142 see also James v. SAIF, 290 Or 343 , 624 P2d 565 (1981) (companion case). This court then remanded to the Board. Paresi v. … Brown v. EBI Companies, 289 Or 905 , 618 P2d 959 (1980); SAIF v. Peoples, supra, 59 Or App at 596 .

Walton v. Board of Parole

346 Or. App. 359 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 31, 2025

We are required to “consider both the evidence that supports and detracts from the board’s findings,” Mendacino v. Board of Parole, 287 Or 362 Walton v. … See Castro v.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Castro

60 Or. App. 112 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1982

See Wolfe Investments v. … See also Begley v. Vogler, 612 SW2d 339, 341 (Ky 1981); Dalton v. Johnson, 341 SW2d 596, 597 (Mo 1960).

Downs v. Board of Parole

345 Or. App. 610 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 10, 2025

Reviewing for “legal error and substantial evi- dence[ ] (including substantial reason),” Morrison v. … No amended reply brief was filed by petitioner and this case was scheduled for submission. 612 Downs 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.

Long v. Board of Parole

346 Or. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 2025

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON JOSEPH CHARLES LONG, Petitioner, v. … Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board). Petitioner’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v.

Jefferson County School District No. 509-J v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board

102 Or. App. 83 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 6, 1990

See Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 294 Or 357, 363-64 , 657 P2d 188 (1982). … See ORS 342.905(5); Thomas v. Cascade Union High Sch. Dist. No. 5, 80 Or App 736 , 724 P2d 330 (1986).

Vedder v. Board of Parole

341 Or. App. 139 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 4, 2025

Affirmed. 140 Vedder v. Board of Parole KAMINS, J. … 142 Vedder v.

Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. Deboard (In re Deboard)

291 Or. App. 742 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 16, 2018

However, in analyzing the compensability of the claim, the board cited our opinion in Brown v. SAIF , 262 Or. … Our opinion in Brown has been reversed. *749 Brown v. SAIF , 361 Or. 241 , 391 P.3d 773 (2017).

Coghill v. Millworks

125 Or. App. 57 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 1993

However, the Board was not required to accept the referee’s credibility assessments, or even to address them. See Erck v. Brown Oldsmobile, 311 Or 519, 526-527 , 815 P2d 1251 (1991). … Our only responsibility in reviewing the Board’s order is to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence. Erck v. Brown Oldsmobile, supra.

Castle & Cook, Inc. v. Porras

103 Or. App. 65 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 8, 1990

On claimant’s petition for review, we remanded to the Board for reconsideration in *68 the light of the substantial evidence standard of review. Porras v. Castle & Cook, Inc., 91 Or App 526 , 755 P2d 154 (1988). … Under that legal standard, the Board made a factual finding, which we review for substantial evidence support. Brown v. Argonaut Insurance Company, 93 Or App 588, 591 , 763 P2d 408 (1988).

Hessel v. Board of Parole

345 Or. App. 781 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 17, 2025

Board of Parole, 258 Or App 595, 598, 310 P3d 736 (2013), rev den, 354 Or 699 (2014), and McCline v. … Schroeder v. Board of Parole, 337 Or App 166 (2024), 784 Hessel v. Board of Parole rev den, 373 Or 736 (2025) (nonprecedential memorandum opinion); Schroeder v.