Case law

Schlesinger v. City of Portland

200 Or. App. 593 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 13, 2005

See, e.g., Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry (A79626), 131 Or App 538, 540 , 886 P2d 1033 (1994), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 325 Or 185 , 935 P2d 411 (1997). … Shatzer, 337 Or 345, 349 , 97 P3d 1161 (2004) (quoting Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 449 , 648 P2d 1289 (1982)).

Shubert v. Blue Chips

151 Or. App. 710 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1997

As we held in our decision in Gallino v. … Shubert v. Department of Consumer and Business Services, CA No. A86479, dismissed May 17, 1995, citing ORS 183.400(1). We adhere to that holding.

Commonwealth Properties, Inc. v. Washington County

35 Or. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 1978

To require such a plan to contain precise and meticulous decision-making criteria, the Board contends, would defeat the very purpose of the plan. The Board contends that Board of Medical Examiners v. … Mintz, 233 Or 441 , 378 P2d 945 (1963); McCann v. OLCC, 27 Or App 487 , 556 P2d 973 (1976), rev den (1977); Sun Ray Drive-In Dairy v. OLCC, 20 Or App 91 , 530 P2d 887 (1975); and Sun Ray Dairy v.

Gallino v. Courtesy Pontiac-Buick-GMC

124 Or. App. 538 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 17, 1993

SAIF next argues that, even if it were mandatory for the director to promulgate a temporary rule, the Board lacks authority to remand the order on reconsideration. SAIF cites Pacheco-Gonzalez v. … By necessary implication, the Board has the power to remand the case to the director and must do so. See Ochoco Construction v. DLCD, 295 Or 422, 426 , 667 P2d 499 (1983). Reversed and remanded.

Jefferson v. Sam's Cafe

123 Or. App. 464 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 6, 1993

In Meyers v. … See Barr v. EBI Companies, 88 Or App 132 , 744 P2d 582 (1987). SAIF was not entitled to have the dispute reviewed by the Director.

SAIF Corp. v. Hoffman

193 Or. App. 750 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 2004

Willamette Industries, Inc. v. Titus, 151 Or App 76, 80 , 950 P2d 318 (1997) (citing Roseburg Forest Products v. Long, 325 Or 305, 309 , 937 P2d 517 (1997)). … (quoting Spurlock v. International Paper Co., 89 Or App 461, 465 , 749 P2d 611 (1988)).

Precision Castparts Corp - PCC Structurals v. Cramer

316 Or. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 2021

Similarly, our references to the board’s order include the ALJ’s order that the board adopted and supplemented. 20 Precision Castparts Corp - PCC Structurals v. … That standard follows from the statutes and the board’s administrative rule governing the 22 Precision Castparts Corp - PCC Structurals v. Cramer review process.

Reynolds Metals v. Rogers

157 Or. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 1998

See also Norstadt v. … Rather, the ALJ and the Board applied the test discussed in Beneficiaries of Strametz v. Spectrum Motorwerks, 135 Or App 67, 74 , 897 P2d 335 , mod 138 Or App 9 , 906 P2d 825 (1995).

Whitlock v. Klamath County School District

158 Or. App. 464 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 17, 1999

Bank of Newport v. … Assn. v.

Garcia v. SAIF Corp.

187 Or. App. 51 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 20, 2003

Allie v. SAIF, 79 Or App 284, 289 [, 719 P2d 47 ] (1986).” The ALJ upheld SAIF’s denial, and the board adopted and affirmed the ALJ’s order. … See Dietz v.

Folkers v. Lincoln County School District

205 Or. App. 619 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 10, 2006

As we said in [McNair v. … Second, he contends that the board did not explain its rejection of its position in a prior case, Anderson v.

Aguilar v. Employment Department

258 Or. App. 453 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 5, 2013

Except where noted otherwise, the pertinent facts are not disputed and we therefore describe them consistently with the board’s findings and the record that supports those findings. McDowell v. … Relying on Opp v.

Northwest Greentree, Inc. v. Cervantes-Ochoa

113 Or. App. 186 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 20, 1992

We conclude that the Board did apply the correct standard, which is the permanent employment relation test. Kolar v. B & C Contractors, 36 Or App 65, 71 , 583 P2d 562 (1978). … The Board applied that test, under which the key inquiry is “the extent to which the claimant’s work outside the state is temporary.” Hobson v.

State v. Goss

219 Or. App. 645 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 7, 2008

The Supreme Court elaborated on those statutes in State v. … State v. Shumway, 124 Or *651 App 131,133, 861 P2d 384 (1993), rev den, 318 Or 459 (1994). That reliability is assessed using a three-factor test. State v.

Saif Corp. v. Bryant

173 Or. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 4, 2001

We explained in SAIF v. … See Skochenko v.

Josephine County v. PERB

316 Or. App. 150 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 2021

Affirmed. 152 Josephine County v. PERB DeVORE, P. J. … Service Employees Int’l Union Local 503 v. DAS, 183 Or App 594, 606, 54 P3d 1043 (2002).

Valleur v. McGee

42 Or. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 1, 1979

Consequently, the holding of a hearing is not a condition precedent to the Board’s jurisdiction but only to the Board’s power to confine a defendant. … Newton v. Brooks, 246 Or 484, 489-90 , 426 P2d 446 (1967). The mechanism for determining suitability for release is the hearing.

SAIF Corp. v. Webb

181 Or. App. 205 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 2002

SAIF argues that the Board erred when it assigned responsibility to SAIF under an “exception” to the presumption established in Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Kearns, 70 Or App 583 , 690 P2d 1068 (1984). … See Conner v. B&S Logging, 153 Or App 354 [, 957 P2d 159 ] (1998)* * *.

Niccum v. Southcoast Lumber Co.

123 Or. App. 472 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 6, 1993

The Board relied on its decision in Stanley Meyers, 43 Van Natta 2643 (1991), and its interpretation of ORS 656.327 and ORS 656.704. In Meyers v. … In Jefferson v.

Lopez v. Mills

249 Or. App. 674 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 9, 2012

See Peek v. … Smith v.