Case law

SAIF v. Lynn

315 Or. App. 720 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 24, 2021

But we reversed the board’s order in Bruntz-Ferguson v. … In Montgomery v. State Ind. Acc.

Armstrong v. Cupp

67 Or. App. 295 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 7, 1984

Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 24 , 581 P2d 934 (1978). … In Penrod/Brown v.

DeBoard v. Meyer

285 Or. App. 732 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 24, 2017

Id. at 258 ; see, e.g., Horizon Air Industries, Inc. v. … SAIF v. Williams, 281 Or App 542, 543 , 381 P3d 955 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

State v. Noble

109 Or. App. 46 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 17, 1991

He relies on State v. … State v. Caraher, supra; see also State v.

Rivera v. Perlo Construction, LLC

336 Or. App. 307 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 2024

Brown. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Kistler, Senior Judge.* ______________ * Egan, J., vice Jacquot, J. 308 Rivera v. Perlo Construction, LLC KISTLER, S. J. … See SAIF v.

Smith v. Smith

2 Or. App. 398 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 1970

In Brown v. … See also authorities cited in Brown v. Brown, supra. We are of the opinion that the same principles also control this case. Thus, it is not necessary for us to discuss the defendant’s other assignments of error.

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.

State v. Chase

263 Or. App. 709 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 18, 2014

See State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (“The court generally must instruct on all essential elements of the crime charged.”). … See ORAP 5.45(1); Ailes v.

Okon v. Broadspire

348 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 25, 2026

OAR 436-035-0007(5)(b); see also SAIF v. … In response, employer contends that the board’s reference to “unambiguous findings” is consistent with our case law. See Hicks v.

State v. Webber

181 Or. App. 229 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 8, 2002

State v. Stephens, 178 Or App 31, 38 , 35 P3d 1061 (2001). … In her written report, Brown reports that appellant said, “This was just a normal brother to brother fight, and that his family *239 overreacted.” Brown found that appellant “was fully oriented.”

Alvarez v. SAIF

345 Or. App. 632 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 17, 2025

Reviewing the board’s legal conclusions for errors of law, ORS 183.482(8)(a); Curry Educational Service Dist. v. … However, unlike in Greenbriar, the record supports the board’s finding that SAIF did not have 636 Alvarez v.

State v. Palomo

256 Or. App. 498 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 8, 2013

State v. Davis, 254 Or App 387, 388 , 292 P3d 666 (2012). … See State v.

State v. Henley

281 Or. App. 825 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 26, 2016

Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984), and State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285 , 899 P2d 663 (1995). … See State v.

Liberty M & Saif Corp. v. Lynch Co. (In re Comp. of Alcorn)

295 Or. App. 809 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2019

Robinson v. SAIF , 147 Or. App. 157 , 160, 935 P.2d 454 (1996) ; McIntyre v. Standard Utility Contractors, Inc. , 135 Or. App. 298 , 301, 897 P.2d 1202 (1995) ; Mandell v. SAIF , 41 Or. … Hicks v. SAIF , 196 Or. App. 146 , 151, 100 P.3d 1129 (2004) (court will affirm the board's reasonable interpretation of the medical evidence supported by substantial evidence).

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Noffsinger

80 Or. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 13, 1986

The Board affirmed without elaboration. … In Stark v. State Industrial Acc.

Smith v. Department of Corrections

243 Or. App. 45 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 2011

As a New York court explained in State v. Rosado, 889 NYS 2d 369 , 377-78 (2009): “The [STATIC-99] is called ‘static’ because it looks only at static, i.e., unchanging, historical events. … Until the board indicates, in some reasonable way, where Exhibit Q-I and Exhibit Q-II may be found, the board rules that refer to STATIC-99 are invalid.

State v. Rice

114 Or. App. 101 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 1992

See Brown v. Multnomah County District Ct., 280 Or. 95 , 570 P.2d 52 (1977); State v. Spinney, 109 Or.App. 573, 577 , 820 P.2d 854 (1991), rev. dismissed 312 Or. 588 , 824 P.2d 417 (1992). … In State v.

State ex rel Maney v. Hsu

308 Or. App. 822 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 27, 2021

The trial court concurred, based on Larsen v. Board of Parole, 191 Or App 526, 84 P3d 176, rev den, 337 Or 248 (2004). … Board of Parole, 349 Or 432, 245 P3d 1270 (2010), and State ex rel Engweiler v. Felton, 350 Or 592, 260 P3d 448 (2011).

Spurger v. SAIF Corp.

266 Or. App. 183 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 8, 2014

See Buss v. … SAIF v.

Torres v. SAIF

321 Or. App. 408 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 24, 2022

When reviewing the board’s evaluation of medical opinions, “we do not substitute our judgment for that of the board”; we determine only whether the board’s evaluation was reasonable. SAIF v. … Corkum v. Bi-Mart Corp., 271 Or App 411, 422, 350 P3d 585 (2015); Murdoch v.