Case law

State v. Jayne

173 Or. App. 533 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 2001

Jennings, 331 Or at 301 (citing State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 408-09 , 687 P2d 751 (1984)). The relevancy requirements of OEC 401 are not stringent. … Brown.”

Godleske v. Morrow

161 Or. App. 523 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 7, 1999

We resolved the issue of whether the Board must rely solely on a psychologist’s or psychiatrist’s diagnosis in extending a parole release date in Weidner v. … We addressed a similar argument in Peek 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.

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.

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. Futch

123 Or. App. 176 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 1993

He relies on the legal criteria established in State v. Brown, 297 Or. 404, 416 , 687 P.2d 751 (1984), to evaluate scientific evidence. … Plemel v. Walter, 303 Or. 262 , 735 P.2d 1209 (1987) further supports the application of the Brown guidelines to RFLP testing.

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.

Babcock v. Sherwood School District 88J

193 Or. App. 449 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 2004

See Sergeant’s Towing, Inc. v. … See City of Salem v.

Jackson v. State Accident Insurance Fund

7 Or. App. 109 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 5, 1971

The *117 Board order “adopted” ORS 656.307. ⑤ We interpret “adopted” to mean that the Board will follow the procedure provided in ORS 656.307. … from a direct responsibility employer shall be recovered from the Direct Responsibility Employers Adjustment Reserve.” ⑥ This case does not involve an apportionment under the circumstances such as was sought in Cutright v.

Wagner v. Employment Division

28 Or. App. 857 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 28, 1977

Palen v. State Bd. Higher Education, 18 Or App 442 , 525 P2d 1047 , S Ct review denied (1974); LaMar’s Enterprises, Inc. v. OLCC, 18 Or App 77 , 524 P2d 336 , S Ct review denied (1974); see Civil Rights Div. v. … Employer relies exclusively on Balduyck v. Morgan, 9 Or App 363 , 497 P2d 377 (1972).

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.

Birrer v. Principal Financial Group

172 Or. App. 654 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 28, 2001

After this case was submitted, we reversed the Board’s decision in Blamires v. … See also Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 206 , 752 P2d 312 (1988).

Roy v. McCormack Pacific Co.

171 Or. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 27, 2000

Moreover, claimant did not seek reconsideration of the Board’s order when it failed to address the issue. An argument that is not raised to the Board is deemed waived. See Oregon Lox Co. v. … In Albany General Hospital 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.

Portland State University Chapter of the American Ass'n of University Professors v. Portland State University

240 Or. App. 108 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

Somoza v. University of Denver, 513 F3d 1206, 1212 (10th Cir 2008).” Steele v. Mayoral, 231 Or App 603, 616 , 220 P3d 761 (2009) (emphasis added). … We reverse and remand so that the board may apply the correct standard as enunciated in Burlington. ORS 183.482(8)(a)(B). Cf. Nakashima v.

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. v. City of Portland

214 Or. App. 534 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 2007

Board of Forestry, 192 Or App 126, 128 , 83 P3d 966 (2004), rev’d on other grounds, 339 Or 136 , 117 P3d 990 (2005). An error is plain if, among other things, its erroneousness is not reasonably in dispute. State v. … Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 US 166, 179 , 101 S Ct 453 , 77 L Ed 2d 368 (1980) (quoting Flemming v. Nestor, 363 US 603, 612 , 80 S Ct 1367 , 4 L Ed 2d 1435 (1960)).

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.

SAIF Corp. v. Kelly

130 Or. App. 185 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 7, 1994

The Board refers to claimant’s “right wrist de Quervain’s tenosynovitis.” Those labels appear to be interchangeable. 2 In Bracke v. … See also Timm v.