Case law

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).

Owens v. School Dist. No. 8R of Umatilla County

3 Or. App. 294 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 13, 1970

The teachers have an express statutory right to be informed of renewal or nonrenewal by March 15 and this right cannot be transgressed by the board. The board may not enact any rules which violate this statute. Laing v. … School District No. 10, 190 Or 358, 373 , 224 P2d 923 (1950), and Crawford v.

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.

County of Linn v. State of Oregon

319 Or. App. 288 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 2022

See Moro v. … James v. State of Oregon, 308 County of Linn 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.

Kaiel v. NCE Cultural Homestay Institute

129 Or. App. 471 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 10, 1994

To determine the relationship between the parties, the Board must first apply the “right to control” test. Woody v. Waibel, 276 Or 189, 196 , 554 P2d 492 (1976). … Livesley Co. v.

Blackman v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

60 Or. App. 446 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 1982

We held in Schlecht v. SAIF, supra, that third-party distribution orders of the board under ORS 656.593 are reviewable by this court pursuant to ORS 656.298 as matters concerning a claim. See ORS 656.704. … In addition to the reasons stated in the text, we consider an outright reversal to be inappropriate here because the board and the parties did not have the benefit of our opinion in Schlecht v.

Dillon v. Whirlpool Corp.

172 Or. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 21, 2001

In 1987, the legislature amended ORS 656.298 to eliminate de novo review of Board decisions. Or Laws 1987, ch 884, § 12a; see Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 295 , 787 P2d 884 (1990). … On review, we will affirm the Board’s findings so long as substantial evidence supports them. Winters v. Woodburn Carcraft Co., 142 Or App 182, 187 , 920 P2d 1118 (1996); Queener v.

Mathis v. State Accident Insurance Fund

10 Or. App. 139 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 1972

Co. v. Industrial Acc. … Under the Occupational Disease Law findings of fact by the medical review board are not reviewable; legal issues are. In this context, the court in Beaudry v.

State v. Althof

273 Or. App. 342 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 26, 2015

State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). … Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984), and State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285 , 899 P2d 663 (1995). Marrington, 335 Or at 557, 560, 564.

SAIF Corp. v. Donahue-Birran

195 Or. App. 173 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 2004

The ALJ affirmed, as did the board. SAIF now seeks judicial review of the board’s order. … SAIF sought board review.

Hubble v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

57 Or. App. 513 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 26, 1982

We reversed and instructed the Board to allow the claim. Hubble v. SAIF, 56 Or App 154 , 641 P2d 593 (1982). … In Giese v.

State v. Kapsalis/Scroggins

123 Or. App. 138 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 1993

In State v. … BMW and that defendant Kapsalis drove a brown BMW.

In re the Marriage of Rousseau

76 Or. App. 528 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 1985

See Garnett v. … v.

Jung Nyeo Lee v. State

290 Or. App. 310 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 2018

ORS 30.275(6) ; Flug v. University of Oregon , 335 Or. 540 , 554, 73 P.3d 917 (2003). … Brown v. Portland School Dist. No. 1 , 291 Or. 77 , 81, 628 P.2d 1183 (1981).

Smith v. Douglas County

93 Or. App. 503 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 19, 1988

The propriety of the Board’s action, however, does not concern how the Board exercised its authority but, rather, whether the Board had authority to do what it did. … That denial was appealed and, on remand from the Board, the permit was approved. 2 This case does not involve an issue which the reviewing body has a duty to review and decide. See 1000 Friends of Oregon v.

Labor Ready v. Mogensen

275 Or. App. 491 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 2015

Finally, citing SAIF v. … As we said in Mills v.

State v. Roeder

209 Or. App. 199 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 8, 2006

That criterion is derived from Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 (1977). … The court imported those factors from Brown v. Multnomah County Dist.

Necanicum Investment Co. v. Employment Department

214 Or. App. 385 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 2007

See, e.g., Chavero v. Local 241, 787 F2d 1154, 1156 (7th Cir 1986) (“members of boards of directors are not employees for purposes of Title VII coverage under any standards”); Zimmerman v. … C. v.