Case law

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. M. A.-J.

228 Or. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 27, 2009

As for the patdown, the state contends that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. … In State v.

Acuna v. SAIF

346 Or. App. 29 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 2025

Again, however, the board did not articulate how those factors weighed in its conclusion. See Taylor v. … The board provided a reasonable basis for its decision. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v.

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.

SAIF Corp. v. Martinez

219 Or. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 2008

We review for substantial evidence and errors of law, ORS 656.298(7); ORS 183.482, and to determine whether the board’s analysis comports with substantial reason. See Drew v. … ORS 656.704; AIG Claim Services v.

State v. Dickerson

260 Or. App. 80 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 18, 2013

See Atkinson v. … Couch, 196 Or App at 676 n 5; see Toomer v.

Luton v. Willamette Valley Rehabilitation Center

272 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 22, 2015

We review the board’s legal conclusions for legal error and its determinations on factual issues for substantial evidence, which includes substantial reason. ORS 183.482(8); Cummings v. … Smirnoff v. SAIF, 188 Or App 438, 443 , 72 P3d 118 (2003).

King v. SAIF

300 Or. App. 267 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 2019

Cope v. West American Ins. … King v.

Warkentin v. Employment Department

245 Or. App. 128 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 17, 2011

See Hill v. … Drew v.

Roy v. Palmateer

194 Or. App. 330 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 4, 2004

See also Napier v. … See Norris v.

Sutherlin School District 130 v. Herrera

120 Or. App. 86 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 1993

Brown v. Dorfman, 251 Or 522, 526 , 446 P2d 672 (1969); Gymnastics USA v. McDougal, 92 Or App 453, 457 , 758 P2d 881 , rev den 307 Or 77 (1988); see also ORS 105.005. … See also Shumate v.

SAIF Corp. v. Pepperling

237 Or. App. 79 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 1, 2010

The ALJ and the board agreed with claimant. Citing Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Crompton, 150 Or App 531 , 946 P2d 1171 (1997), and Albany General Hospital v. … In *85 reviewing the board’s evaluation of Girod’s opinion, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the board; rather, we determine whether the board’s evaluation of that evidence was reasonable. Asten-Hill Co. v.

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.

State v. Matischeck

21 Or. App. 300 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 5, 1975

This case is again before us on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749 , 534 P2d 501 (1975). … We adhere to our prior analysis of the prosecutorial-knowledge element of the double-jeopardy test of State v. Brown, 262 Or 442 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972).

Karjalainen v. Curtis Johnston & Pennywise, Inc.

208 Or. App. 674 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 18, 2006

Coast Security Mortgage Corp. v. Real Estate Agency, 331 Or 348, 353 , 15 P3d 29 (2000). Examples include the terms “weapon,” Brundridge v. Board of Parole, 192 Or App 648 , 87 P3d 703 (2004); “wildlife,” State v. … Hale v.

Thompson v. Secretary of State

19 Or. App. 74 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 23, 1974

In this regard we noted in Phillips v. … Bay v.

Weber v. Oakridge School District 76

184 Or. App. 415 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 23, 2002

Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 449 , 648 P2d 1289 (1982). Such a controversy “must involve present facts as opposed to a dispute which is based on future events of a hypothetical issue.” Id. 4. … See, e.g., State v. Brown, 301 Or 268, 273 , 721 P2d 1357 (1986) (“The warrant requirement * * * may be dispensed with in only a few specifically established and well-delineated circumstances.”); State v.

State v. Lyon

83 Or. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 1987

We decline to do so. 7 See State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 , 445 n 35, 687 P2d 751 (1984); State v. Bennett, 17 Or App 197 , 521 P2d 31 (1974); State v. Bass, 76 Or App 396 , 708 P2d 1207 (1985); State v. … The act is administered by the Board on Police Standards and Training.

TriMet v. Wilkinson

257 Or. App. 80 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 12, 2013

In advancing that argument, employer relies on Columbia Forest Products v. … (Citation omitted; emphasis in original.)); SAIF v. Tull, 113 Or App 449, 454 , 832 P2d 1271 (1992) (“[Wjhether an acceptance occurs is an issue of fact.”); Garcia v.

Meyers v. Darigold, Inc.

123 Or. App. 217 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 1993

The Board cited Smith v. SAIF, 302 Or 396 , 730 P2d 30 (1986), for its proposition that lost earning capacity must be proven in all aggravation claims, including those limited to medical services. … Because the Board disposed of the aggravation claim by holding that claimant was not more disabled from working, it did not determine whether the need for medical services was the result of the injury. 5 Smith v.

Doe v. Lake Oswego School District

242 Or. App. 605 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 2011

Board of Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 US 397, 403 , 117 S Ct 1382 , 137 L Ed 2d 626 (1997). “In other words, respondeat superior liability does not apply in section 1983 actions.” T. R. v. … Brown, 520 US at 403 .