Case law

Roach v. Jackson County

151 Or. App. 33 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 1997

State ex rel Cox v. Davidson Ind., 291 Or 839, 851 , 635 P2d 630 (1981). Also, plaintiffs reliance on ORS 609.090(2) is misplaced. … For the above reasons, the trial court did not err in affirming the Board’s order.

State v. Waldron

298 Or. App. 180 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 2019

See State v. Lewis , 236 Or. … See State v. Carr , 215 Or.

State v. Finlay

257 Or. App. 581 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 17, 2013

Relying on State v. … See United States v.

North Pacific Insurance v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance

200 Or. App. 473 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2005

May v. … For instance, in Wisbey v. Nationwide Mut. Ins.

Olson v. STATE MORTUARY AND CEMETERY BD.

230 Or. App. 376 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 19, 2009

The legislature further authorized the board to investigate any complaint concerning a licensee and, if the board finds that the licensee violated any applicable industry standards, authorized the board to impose a civil … See Advocates for Effective Regulation v.

Nesbit v. Bd. of Licensed Prof'l Counselors & Therapists

291 Or. App. 401 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 18, 2018

Based on our recent decision in King v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards , 289 Or. … Petitioner did not file timely exceptions to the board's order but did file a petition for reconsideration, which the board denied.

Meeker v. BD. OF COM'RS OF CLATSOP COUNTY

36 Or. App. 699 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 1978

In sum, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings of fact, and therefore we are bound by them. ORS 34.040(3); Green v. … See also, 1000 Friends v. Benton County, 32 Or App 413 , 575 P2d 651 , rev den 584 Or 1371 (1978). Petitioners’ reliance on the LCDC decision in 1000 Friends v.

State v. Lebanno

314 Or. App. 172 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 1, 2021

State v. … State v.

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

296 Or. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 20, 2019

The board-correctly-concedes the point. In Porter v. Board of Parole , 281 Or. … Petitioner observes that, in Peek v. Thompson , 160 Or.

Still v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS OF MARION CTY.

42 Or. App. 115 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 17, 1979

from Meeker v. … See also the denial of the petition for review in 1000 Friends v.

Demaray v. Dept. of Environmental Quality

127 Or. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 20, 1994

See, e.g., Wells v. Brown, 891 F2d 591, 592 (6th Cir 1989). … Robson v. Klamath County Board of Health, supra, 105 Or App at 218 .

State v. Rode

118 Or. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 17, 1993

Defendant relies on Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 (1977), and on our application of Brown in State v. … See Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., supra, 280 Or at 101 . In doing so here, it did not retain criminal punishments, as it did for the offense of DUII considered in Brown .

Smith v. Department of Corrections

105 Or. App. 61 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 1990

See Clark v. Schumacher, 103 Or App 1, 4 , 795 P2d 1093 (1990).

State v. Steen

215 Or. App. 635 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 31, 2007

The court imposed consecutive sentences, committing defendant to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board for a term of 60 years. On appeal, defendant argues that, under Crawford v. … State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990).

State v. Allen

224 Or. App. 524 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 2008

Id.; see generally State v. … See State v.

State v. Presley

84 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 1987

The trial court’s failure to allow any cross-examination about Brown’s experience as an informant, although it was error, did not likely change the result of the trial. See State v. … In State v.

State v. Freeman

345 Or. App. 415 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 3, 2025

Applying the five-factor test set forth in Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. … Brown, 280 Or at 105-06. Defendant does not address the collateral consequences of a probation violation hearing, which likely vary from case to case, and we decline to develop that argument for him. State v.

Miles v. BD. OF COM'RS OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY

48 Or. App. 951 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1980

Respondents are the Board of Commissioners for Clackamas County (Board). … Still v. Board of County Comm’rs, 42 Or App 115, 119-20 , 600 P2d 433 (1979), rev den 288 Or 493 (1980) (subdivision order failed to address policy issues of ORS 215.243 as required by ORS 215.213(3)(a)).

State v. Hall

181 Or. App. 536 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 29, 2002

See, e.g., State v. … Thus, in State v.

Summerfield v. Or. Liquor Control Comm'n

294 Or. App. 415 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 17, 2018

Both parties provided briefing, following the framework established for admission of scientific evidence in State v. Brown , 297 Or. 404 , 687 P.2d 751 (1984), and State v. O'Key , 321 Or. 285 , 899 P.2d 663 (1995). … If proposed testimony is "scientific," the proponent is "required to comply with the standards *426 for admission of scientific *418 evidence set out in O'Key and * * * Brown [.]" State v.