Case law

Cameron v. Norco Contract Service

128 Or. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 8, 1994

The Board agreed with insurer. … See also United Airlines, Inc. v. Brown, 127 Or App 253, 257 , 873 P2d 326 (1994).

Marshall v. Cosgrave, Kester, Crowe, Gidley & Lagesen

112 Or. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 22, 1992

In Rosencrantz v. Insurance Service, *389 supra, and again in Gumbrecht v. … Brown v. SAIF, 43 Or App 447 , 602 P2d 1151 (1979), rev den 288 Or 335 (1980), is not contrary to our conclusion.

Noakes v. Schoenborn

116 Or. App. 464 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 18, 1992

Noakes’ objections were not allowed to be presented to the board of directors of FTW. … In Browning v.

State v. T. L. B.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 25, 2024

Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., 280 Or 95, 103, 570 P2d 52 (1977). “It is the punitive use of detention, not the detention as such, that defines the criminal offense.” Id. … Brown, 280 Or at 103.

Scarratt v. H. A. Anderson Construction Co.

108 Or. App. 554 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 28, 1991

The Board found that claimant had suffered a “temporary increase in * * * wrist symptoms.” Under Barrett v. … The Board concluded that employer’s denial was not unreasonable. Our standard of review is explained in Brown v.

Weiker v. Douglas County School District No. 4

271 Or. App. 389 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 28, 2015

See SAIF v. … On review, the parties do not suggest that the board, in analyzing the compensability of the proposed surgery, should have taken a different view of the “compensable injury” in light of our recent decisions in Brown v.

State v. T. L. B.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 25, 2024

Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., 280 Or 95, 103, 570 P2d 52 (1977). “It is the puni- tive use of detention, not the detention as such, that defines the criminal offense.” Id. … Brown, 280 Or at 103.

Aikens v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

298 Or. App. 443 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 3, 2019

That argument, as petitioner acknowledges, is foreclosed by our decision in Morrison v. Board of Parole , 277 Or. App. 861 , 374 P.3d 948 , rev. den. , 360 Or. 465 , 384 P.3d 152 (2016). Affirmed. … Aikens v. Board of Parole , 298 Or. App. 14 , 446 P.3d 79 (2019). That decision does not moot this case because the board will not necessarily find in petitioner's favor on remand.

State v. Dinkel

34 Or. App. 375 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 1978

State v. Gilbert; 281 Or 101 , 574 P2d 313 (1978), as interpreted in State v. Cloutier, supra, 33 Or App at 125-26 , and State v. … See Or Const, Art I, § 15; see also Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., 280 Or 95, 105 , 570 P2d 52 (1977).

Engweiler v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

291 Or. App. 355 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 18, 2018

Engweiler v. Cook , 340 Or. 373 , 381, 133 P.3d 904 (2006). … [ /Fleming v.

Sharp v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

294 Or. App. 506 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 17, 2018

PER CURIAM *507 Under ORS 183.400, petitioner challenges OAR 255-032-0005(2), a rule adopted by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, asserting that the rule is invalid because it violates two constitutional provisions

Sharp v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

292 Or. App. 556 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 2018

PER CURIAM *557 Under ORS 183.400, petitioner challenges OAR 255-035-0022, a rule adopted by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the board), asserting that the rule is inconsistent with the board's statutory

Cook v. Employment Division

63 Or. App. 593 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 1983

In Cook v. … Brown v. Adult and Family Services, 51 Or App 213, 215-16 , 625 P2d 160 (1981), aff’d 293 Or 6 , 643 P2d 1266 (1982); see also Goldhammer v. AFSD, 63 Or App 587 , 666 P2d 268 (1983). We turn now to the merits.

Haviland Hotels Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission

20 Or. App. 105 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 20, 1975

However, they were not what you would call hash browns as they were not browned. … Eor this reason we hold that the OLCC’s order is unlawful in substance and must therefore be reversed. *109 See generally, Bay v. State Board of Education, 233 Or 601, 605 , 378 P2d 558 (1963), and Phillips v.

State v. Porter

102 Or. App. 22 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 30, 1990

Brown, 301 Or 268 , 721 P2d 1357 (1986), the so-called automobile exception to the warrant requirement. … In State v.

Dundas v. Lincoln County

48 Or. App. 1025 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1980

In Smith v. … of the Fair Board.

State v. Trax

179 Or. App. 193 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2002

That building was a boarding house in which the defendant resided. 246 P at 1106. … In State v.

Hirsovescu v. Shangri-La Corp.

113 Or. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 1992

Brown v. J. C. Penney Co., 297 Or 695, 705 , 688 P2d 811 (1984); Adams v. Knoth, 102 Or App 238, 243 , 794 P2d 796 (1990). … In McCool v.

Cook v. Employment Division

51 Or. App. 307 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 23, 1981

Davidson v. Employment Division, 51 Or App 219 , 625 P2d 162 (1981). That principle is inapplicable here because the agency is an adversary of petitioner in enforcement proceedings. In Brown v. … The Employment Appeals Board concurred.

McClaflin v. Wright

107 Or. App. 688 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 1991

Plaintiff's claim is not in the first category in Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or. 21 , 581 P.2d 934 (1978). See Fox v. Zenon, 106 Or. App. 37 , 806 P.2d 166 (1991). … Notwithstanding the repeal [3] of the civil death statute in 1975, Penrod/Brown v.