Case law

Banaitis v. Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd.

129 Or. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 3, 1994

Brown v. J. C. Penney Co., 297 Or 695, 705 , 688 P2d 811 (1984); see also Hirsovescu v. Shangri-La Corp., 113 Or App 145, 147 , 831 P2d 73 (1992). … Sears, Roebuck and Co., 298 Or 76, 90-97 , 689 P2d 1292 (1984), or filing a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 , 588 P2d 1087 (1978).

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Arevalo (In re Comp. of Arevalo)

296 Or. App. 514 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 13, 2019

Group v. Huff , 149 Or. App. 298 , 307, 942 P.2d 853 (1997) (rejecting argument that the board erred because it addressed the issue of attorney fees sua sponte ). Our decision in Braden v. SAIF , 187 Or. … PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries , 317 Or. 606 , 610, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993). We do that using the analytical framework set out in State v.

Wallace v. State ex rel. Public Employees Retirement System

249 Or. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 4, 2012

In Brumnett v. … As we explained in Starrett v.

Branton v. Oregon State Penitentiary

89 Or. App. 597 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 24, 1988

In State v. … The only change in the law since State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984), which we cited in our former opinion, is emphasized in the above quote.

Peabody v. Saif Corp. (In re Comp. of Peabody)

297 Or. App. 704 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 2019

We agree with claimant that the board erred by not adequately explaining the basis for the attorney fee award. "Orders of the board must be supported by substantial reason." Taylor v. SAIF , 295 Or. … App. at 203 , 433 P.3d 419 ; see also Schoch v.

State v. Osborne

82 Or. App. 229 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 12, 1986

Brown testified that Saunders asked him to help him commit the murder and burn the house. … United States v. Perez, 658 F2d 654 (9th Cir 1981). Here, Saunders’ statement soliciting Brown’s help contained neither assertions nor recollections of past facts. It also did not misrepresent defendant’s involvement.

State v. Wehr

275 Or. App. 528 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 2015

See ORAP 5.45(1) (authorizing review of errors apparent on the record); State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (identifying requirements for plain error). … State v. Brown, 272 Or App 321, 324-25 , 355 P3d 129 (2015). In that case, the defendant was not “actively instrumental” in bringing about the error.

State v. Lyons

124 Or. App. 598 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 17, 1993

In Brown , the Supreme Court examined the peak of tension test for general acceptance within the field of polygraphy. State v. Brown, 297 Or at 422-25 . … See State v. Brown, supra, 297 Or at 427 .

Walker v. Providence Health System Oregon

254 Or. App. 676 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2013

“We review the board’s decision for substantial evidence and errors of law, and to determine whether the board’s analysis comports with substantial reason.” SAIF v. Ramos, 252 Or App 361, 363 , 287 P3d 1220 (2012). … Providence Health System v. Walker, 252 Or App 489 , 289 P3d 256 (2012) (Walker II).

Property Management Services, Inc. v. PMC Village Inn, Ltd.

91 Or. App. 225 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 1988

Broyles v. Brown, supra, 295 Or at 801 . … Broyles v. Brown, supra, 295 Or at 801 . Applying those standards, we hold that defendant had no “probable cause” for taking this appeal.

Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co. v. Anderson

344 Or. App. 60 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 8, 2025

Co. v. … As we explained in Valtinson v.

State v. Beltran-Chavez

286 Or. App. 590 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2017

See State v. … State v.

Wilson v. Saint Helens School Dist. 29J

335 Or. App. 695 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 2024

Moreover, a board order must be supported by “substantial reason.” Taylor v. SAIF, 295 Or App 199, 203, 433 P3d 419 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 194 (2019). … On review, claimant argues that our decision in Sullivan v.

Erickson v. R&R Ranches, LLC

316 Or. App. 287 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2021

Plaintiffs asserted that they gave cash for the deposit to R&R’s agent, Brown, but that Brown had failed to deliver the money to R&R. … See Whittle v. Marion County Dist.

State v. Bolton

310 Or. App. 255 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 31, 2021

The state argues, offering scholarly literature on appeal, that the foundation was sufficient for the nature of the testimony under the standards of State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984), and State v. … See State v.

State v. Grenvik

48 Or. App. 939 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1980

Defendant makes an additional argument not raised in State v. Annino, supra. Defendant entered his plea of guilty on May 3,1977, prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. … These provisions were declared unconstitutional in Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct. supra.

State v. Canape

46 Or. App. 453 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 2, 1980

. *458 In Brown v. … State v. Brown, 31 Or App 501 , 570 P2d 1001 (1977). 3 In State v.

Saif Corp. v. Ramos

252 Or. App. 361 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 2012

We review the board’s decision for substantial evidence and errors of law, and to determine whether the board’s analysis comports with substantial reason. ORS 656.298(7); ORS 183.482; SAIF v. … See Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v.

Haidar v. PSRB

324 Or. App. 129 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 2023

ORS 183.482(8)(c); Rinne v. PSRB, 297 Or App 549, 557, 443 P3d 731 (2019). In addition to substantial evidence, we also review for substantial reason. City of Roseburg v. … Knotts v. PSRB, 250 Or App 448, 455, 280 P3d 1030 (2012). “If the board’s reasoning cannot be ascertained or is faulty, then the order is not supported by substantial reason.” Id.

State v. O'KEEFE

40 Or. App. 685 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 18, 1979

Under Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485 , 443 P2d 621 (1968), and State v. … That is the parole board’s responsibility. The recommendation, even if appropriate, would have no binding effect on the board, and we have no authority to review such a recommendation.