Case law

Wasco County v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local No. 2752

30 Or. App. 863 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 1977

Assn. v. Sch. … Brusco Towboat v. State Land Bd., 30 Or App 509 , — P2d — (1977); Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761 , 566 P2d 904 (1977); Smith v. Peet, 29 Or App 625 , 564 P2d 1083 , 30 Or App 245 , 567 P2d 125 (1977); McCrae v.

Simi v. LTI Inc. - Lynden Inc.

301 Or. App. 535 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 2019

See Simi v. … The board cited our opinion in Akins v.

Wiggins v. SAIF

300 Or. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 2019

As we recently recounted in Broeke v. SAIF, 300 Or App 91, 453 P3d 597 (2019), in Spurger v. … We draw them from the undisputed portions of the board’s order, supplementing with additional undisputed facts drawn from the evidence in the record. Robin v.

Hicks v. SAIF Corp.

194 Or. App. 655 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 2004

As we said in Khrul v. Foremans Cleaners, 194 Or App 125 , 93 P3d 820 (2004), in reviewing the director’s order on reconsideration, the board is not free to determine a claimant’s impairment. … (“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, only the attending physician at the time of closure may make findings regarding the worker’s impairment for the purpose of evaluating the worker’s disability.”); Koitzsch v.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. v. Lamb

278 Or. App. 622 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 2, 2016

See Schoch v. … We note, however, that in SAIF v.

SAIF Corp. v. Tull

113 Or. App. 449 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 1992

The Board found that the record did not indicate when claimant was given notice of SAIF’s denial. In Madewell v. … Here, the Board reviewed the proper record and properly applied the rule of Bauman v.

Bailleaux v. Cupp

16 Or. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 11, 1974

In Sterling v. … Bey v. Connecticut Board of Parole, 443 F.2d 1079, 1086 (CA2 1971).’ 408 US at 482, n 8 .

SAIF Corp. v. Traner

270 Or. App. 67 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 25, 2015

So, too, has the board. In SAIF v. Stephens, 247 Or App 107, 109 , 269 P3d 62 (2011), a claimant asserted a claim for a new or omitted condition of coccydynia. … SAIF v. Allen, 320 Or 192, 211-12 , 881 P2d 773 (1994).

Champion v. Employment Dept.

325 Or. App. 71 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 29, 2023

Affirmed. 72 Champion v. Employment Dept. HELLMAN, J. … Put another way, the board must provide an explanation for how it reached its conclusion. Castro v. Board of Parole, 232 Or App 75, 83, 220 P3d 772 (2009).

Bremer v. Employment Division

47 Or. App. 1131 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 1980

In McPherson v. … McCann v. OLCC, [supra], 27 Or App at 493 ; Home Plate, Inc. v. OLCC, 20 Or App 188, 190-91 , 530 P2d 862 (1975). * * * ” 2 Donnell v. Briggs, 37 Or App 823 , 588 P2d 650 (1978).

Hutchings v. Americas Propane

275 Or. App. 579 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 23, 2015

Corkum v. Bi-Mart Corp., 271 Or App 411, 420-21 , 350 P3d 585 (2015). … We express no opinion on whether other medical evidence in the record would support the board’s conclusion. In addition, after oral argument in this case, we decided SAIF v.

Russell v. A & D Terminals

50 Or. App. 27 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 5, 1981

Neely v. SAIF, supra; Francoeur v. SAIF, 20 Or App 604 , 532 P2d 1148 (1975). … Ford v. SAIF, 7 Or App 549, 552 , 492 P2d 491 (1972).

Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Olvera-Chavez

267 Or. App. 55 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 19, 2014

See Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. … See Atchley v.

Spurger v. SAIF Corp.

292 Or. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 6, 2018

This is the second time that we have considered a board order rejecting claimant's request for an award for chronic condition impairment. See Spurger v. SAIF , 266 Or. App. 183 , 337 P.3d 883 (2014). … We remanded the case for the board to further explain its reasoning. Spurger , 266 Or. App. at 195 , 337 P.3d 883 . Pending remand, we issued our opinion in Godinez v. SAIF , 269 Or. App. 578 , 346 P.3d 530 (2015).

Calvi v. Gallagher Bassett Services Inc.

347 Or. App. 281 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 19, 2026

Hopkins v. … In Cayton v.

SAIF Corp. v. Walker

260 Or. App. 327 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 2013

See SAIF v. … .”); SAIF v.

Nordstrom, Inc. v. Gaul

108 Or. App. 237 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 24, 1991

We adhered to that rule in Grace v. SAIF, 76 Or App 511, 515 , 709 P2d 1146 (1985), Wilkerson v. Davila, 88 Or App 298, 299 , 744 P2d 1331 (1987), and, most recently, in Mal v. … See Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Page, supra, 73 Or App at 140 .” 93 Or App at 708 . The Board applied the correct legal standard here.

SAIF Corp. v. Stephens

247 Or. App. 107 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 14, 2011

As we recently explained in Crawford v. … .” *113 SAIF contends that the board’s conclusion is not consistent with our opinion in Young v. Hermiston Good Samaritan, 223 Or App 99, 104 , 194 P3d 857 (2008).

State v. Fix

83 Or. App. 107 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 17, 1986

We hold that the search was justified under the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement, see State v. Brown, 301 Or 268 , 721 P2d 1357 (1986), and State v. … State v. Brown, supra, 301 Or at 279. Defendant does not dispute that the truck was lawfully stopped or that it was mobile at the time of the stop.

Christenson v. Thompson

176 Or. App. 54 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 15, 2001

Christenson v. Thompson, 158 Or App 347 , 974 P2d 263 (1999). The ¡Supreme Court reversed and remanded to this court in light of Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or 180 , 998 P2d 661 (2000). Christenson v. … For purposes of habeas corpus review, the Board’s orders must be supported by some evidence in the record. Id. at 456 . In Weidner v.