Case law

Randall v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.

107 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 1991

In Mischel v. Portland General Electric, supra, we explained our holding in Spivey v. … The Board could properly assess attorney fees pursuant to ORS 656.262(10) and ORS 656.382, even though no compensation was then due.” 89 Or App at 143 . After Ellis v.

State v. Morgan

116 Or. App. 338 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 1993

See ORS 137.669; State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434 , 806 P2d 130 , rev dismissed 312 Or 76 , 815 P2d 701 *343 (1991) ; see also State v. Little, 116 Or App 322 , 842 P2d 414 (1992) . … See State v. Haydon, supra, 116 Or App at 353-54.

Howard v. Willamette Poultry

101 Or. App. 584 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 23, 1990

The claimant took a position before the Board on responsibility that would have resulted in increased time loss benefits. Phipps , however, does not refer to Shoulders v. SAIF, supra, and predates Short v. … In Dilworth v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 95 Or App 85 , 767 P2d 484 , rev den 307 Or 658 (1989), and SAIF v.

State Ex Rel. Gilmore v. Cupp

1 Or. App. 22 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 7, 1969

In this proceeding the parole board heard no witnesses nor did it . offer Gilmore the opportunity of calling witnesses. The Oregon Supreme Court in Whalen v. … Anderson v. Alexander, supra, at 430-31. The burden of proof of arbitrariness is on the person whose parole is revoked. Anderson v. Alexander, supra, at 440.

Pena v. Travelers Ins. Co. (In re Pena)

294 Or. App. 740 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 7, 2018

See Don't Waste Oregon Com. v. … See Smith v. Veterinary Medical Examining Board , 175 Or.

Pietrzykowski v. Albertsons, Inc.

212 Or. App. 421 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 2, 2007

In explaining the first rationale for its decision, the board analogized this case to Crowder v. … Finally, citing Trujillo v.

Red Robin International v. Dombrosky

207 Or. App. 476 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2006

See, e.g., Tri-Met, Inc. v. Wolfe, 192 Or App 556 , 86 P3d 111 (2004). … Reversed and remanded for reconsideration. 1 In French-Davis v.

Multnomah Cty. v. Mult. Cty. Corrections Deputy Assn.

317 Or. App. 89 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 20, 2022

Board (board). … B. v.

Benz v. SAIF Corp.

170 Or. App. 22 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2000

In Roseburg Forest Products v. … Although the Board may draw reasonable inferences from the medical evidence, it is not free to reach its own medical conclusions about causation in the absence of such evidence. See SAIF v.

State v. Link

297 Or. App. 126 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 2019

See, e.g. , Wille v. Board of Parole , 287 Or. … Board of Parole , 287 Or.

Guill v. M. Squared Transportation, Inc.

277 Or. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 6, 2016

In so doing, it rejected claimant’s argument that Livesley v. … Id.; Blank, 252 Or App at 557-58 ; McTaggart v.

Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. Ernst

190 Or. App. 525 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 13, 2003

Fred Meyer then requested review by the board. ORS 656.289(3). The board panel that reviewed the case consisted of board members Biehl, Bock, and Phillips Polich. … Resolution of this issue requires interpretation of several statutes: ORS 656.012; ORS 656.289; ORS 656.712; ORS 656.716; and ORS 656.718. 1 In construing those statutes, we apply the familiar methodology described in PGE v.

Scott v. Liberty Northwest Insurance

268 Or. App. 325 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 31, 2014

As we held in Johansen v. … The case thus narrows down to the question addressed in the board’s order: Was there medical authorization for the payment of temporary disability? We explained in Lederer v.

Currier v. Washman, LLC

276 Or. App. 93 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 27, 2016

Brown v. J. C. Penney Co., 297 Or 695, 705 , 688 P2d 811 (1984). We do not weigh conflicting evidence or evaluate credibility when reviewing the record. Fang v. Li, 203 Or App 481, 485 , 125 P3d 832 (2005). … If a railway company prepares a paved or boarded path across its tracks, it may or may not give members of *100 the public reason to believe that the pathway is prepared for their use.

State v. Davis

306 Or. App. 138 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 19, 2020

Brown, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. … State v. Gaige, 304 Or App 471, 468 P3d 532 (2020).

Ybarra v. Dominguez Family Enterprises, Inc.

322 Or. App. 798 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 30, 2022

All of the share- holders were employees of DFE and members of its board, except for plaintiff, who resigned her position in 2011. … v.

State v. Roelle

261 Or. App. 705 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 26, 2014

State v. Dimmick, 248 Or App 167, 169 , 273 P3d 212 (2012). Around 9:15 a.m. on July 16, 2010, defendant’s domestic partner, Brown, told a police officer that defendant had abused her earlier that morning. … State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256-57 , 971 P2d 879 , cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (interpreting ORS 132.560 (1993), amended by Or Laws 1999, ch 1040, § 17, which required a showing of “prejudice”); State v.

Saif Corp. v. Dunn (In re Comp. of Dunn)

297 Or. App. 206 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 24, 2019

Corp. v. Spurgeon , 109 Or. … The board also cited our opinion in Corkum v. Bi-Mart Corp. , 271 Or.

State v. Ruiz

219 Or. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 2, 2008

See Roop v. … The controlling law is stated in State v. Brown, 301 Or 268 , 721 P2d 1357 (1986). The Supreme Court held in that case that a “per se exigency rule” exists for automobile searches under Article I, section 9.

Sahnow v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

3 Or. App. 164 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 1970

This statute was construed in Coday v. Willamette Tug and Barge, 250 Or 39 , 440 P2d 224 (1968), and Beagle v. Wilhelm Warehouse Co., 2 Or App 533 , 463 P2d 875 , 470 P2d 386 (1970), and Hannan v. … Rogers, but in the later reports obtained pursuant to the Board’s order, said that the fact such studies had not been made would not change their opinions. In Coday v.