Case law

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.”

SAIF Corp. v. DeLeon

241 Or. App. 614 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 23, 2011

We agree with SAIF that ORS 656.382(2), as interpreted by this court in Santos v. Caryall Transport, 171 Or App 467, 469 , 17 P3d 509 (2000), rev den, 332 Or 558 (2001) (Santos II), and SAIF v. … Claimant appealed the ALJ’s order to the Workers’ Compensation Board, and the board reversed the ALJ, reinstating the 11 percent award.

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.

Keystone RV Co.-Thor Industries, Inc. v. Erickson

277 Or. App. 631 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 20, 2016

Washington County v. … See SAIF v.

Kelley v. Sisters of Providence in Oregon

98 Or. App. 684 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 11, 1989

See Patton v. J. C. … See Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or 220 , 779 P2d 1000 (1989).

Haskins v. Palmateer

186 Or. App. 159 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 5, 2003

Byrnes v. Board of Parole, 134 Or App 296, 300 , 894 P2d 1252 (1995). … City of Klamath Falls v. Environ. Quality Comm., 318 Or 532, 543 , 870 P2d 825 (1994). Thus, we decline to read such a term into the board’s rules.

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. 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.

Spurger v. SAIF Corp.

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

See Buss v. … SAIF v.

Medford Firefighters Ass'n, Local 1431 v. City of Medford

43 Or. App. 733 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1979

See, e.g., Hinson v. NLRB, 428 F2d 133, 136 (8th Cir 1970). The termination date of the agreement, however, is now res judicata. Medford Firefighters v. … Cf., McPherson v. Employment Division, 285 Or 541, 550 , 591 P2d 1381 (1979); Springfield Education Assn v. School Dist., 42 Or App 93 , 600 P2d 425 (1979).

State v. McCoy

152 Or. App. 393 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 4, 1998

State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). That requirement is not met here. … Brown, 310 Or at 355 . Affirmed.

State v. Wheeler

268 Or. App. 729 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 4, 2015

See ORAP 5.45(1) (authorizing appellate court to consider unpreserved error of law apparent on the record); State v. … Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (describing requirements for plain-error review under ORAP 5.45(1)).

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).

Weidner v. Armenakis

154 Or. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 20, 1998

Plaintiff first argues that the Board’s application of ORS 144.125(3) (1993) violated the ex post facto provisions of *16 the state and federal constitutions. In Meadows v. … , make the final determination whether a prisoner’s release should be deferred. 2 See, e.g., State v.

SAIF v. Sumner

313 Or. App. 434 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 21, 2021

ORS 183.482(8); Compton v. SAIF Corp., 195 Or App 329, 333, 97 P3d 669, rev den, 337 Or 669 (2004). We review the board’s find- ings for substantial evidence and substantial reason. … See SAIF v.

Young v. Hermiston Good Samaritan

223 Or. App. 99 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2008

In SAIF v. … In White v.

Miles v. Bi-Mart Corp.

316 Or. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 22, 2021

Additionally, the board’s reasoning must provide a rational explanation of the factual findings that lead to the legal conclusions on which the order is based. NAES Corp. v. … Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363, 366, 867 P2d 1373 (1994).

Godinez v. SAIF Corp.

269 Or. App. 578 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 11, 2015

See Gienger v. … Gafur v. Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital, 344 Or 525, 533 , 185 P3d 446 (2008).

State v. MacOmber

18 Or. App. 163 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 22, 1974

When defense counsel moved to require tlie state to elect, he relied upon State v. Brown, supra. … Brown, supra, and State v. Woolard, supra.

Arms v. SAIF Corp.

268 Or. App. 761 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 4, 2015

If that is the board’s finding, it is not supported by substantial evidence and reason. As we explained in Luckhurst v. … See also SAIF v.