Case law

Beagle v. Rudie Wilhelm Warehouse Company

2 Or. App. 533 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 15, 1970

In Coday v. … In Romero v.

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.

Clackamas County Employees' Ass'n v. Clackamas County/Clackamas County District Attorney

243 Or. App. 34 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 2011

The board disagreed. For the reasons explained below, we reverse and remand. We take the facts as found by the board, which are undisputed. See AFSCME Council 75 v. … In Oregon Public Employees Union v.

State v. Woodford

293 Or. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 2018

See State v. … See State v. Strye , 273 Or.

Waldroup v. J. C. Penney Co.

30 Or. App. 443 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 8, 1977

In Grunnett v. State Ind. Acc. … In Grant v. State Industrial Acc.

Davis v. SAIF

316 Or. App. 301 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 2021

The relevant facts are undisputed; thus, we review the board’s determination for errors of law. ORS 656.298(7); ORS 183.482(8); American Medical Response v. … Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc., 331 Or 178, 186, 11 P3d 1286 (2000).

Santos v. Caryall Transport

171 Or. App. 467 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 20, 2000

See Gainor v. SAIF, 51 Or App 869, 870 , 627 P2d 41 (1981); Bailey v. Morrison-Knudsen, 5 Or App 592, 598-600 , 485 P2d 1254 (1971). Here, employer initiated the appeal to the Board and prevailed at that level. … Deaton v.

SAIF Corp. v. Strubel

161 Or. App. 516 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 7, 1999

Dietz v. Ramuda, *521 130 Or App 397, 401 , 882 P2d 618 (1994), rev dismissed 321 Or 416 (1995). … See Uris v.

Horn v. Timber Products, Inc.

12 Or. App. 9 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 5, 1973

The hearing officer, the Board and the circuit court each independently concluded that it was. We have examined the record de novo in its entirety. Hannan v. … The employer also contends attorney fees should not have been awarded claimant by the Board in connection with the employer’s request for review to the Board. We disagree. Recently in Giese v.

State v. Sweet

93 Or. App. 642 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 2, 1988

State v. Brown, 306 Or 599, 606-07 , 761 P2d 1300 (1988); State v. Haley, 64 Or App 209, 212-13 , 667 P2d 560 (1983). … State v. Brown, supra, 306 Or at 605 . Defendant’s wife’s testimony was evidence from which the jury could find the required elements of the defense.

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.

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.

Boyd v. SAIF Corp.

115 Or. App. 241 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 16, 1992

There were conflicting medical opinions about the genesis of claimant’s disability, and the Board’s selection of one as opposed to the other was not error. Armstrong v. … For example, in Albee v.

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.

Peterson v. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO

32 Or. App. 181 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 1978

by Fasano v. … In Tierney v.

Waybrant v. Clackamas County

54 Or. App. 740 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 16, 1981

Plaintiff named as defendants the Board of Commissioners and each individual member thereof. … In a county having a board of county commissioners consisting of three commissioners, county business shall be transacted by the board or a majority of the commissioners.” 3 See Southern Pacific v.

Westrope v. Employment Department

144 Or. App. 163 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 1996

Simplot Co. v. Employment Div., 102 Or App 523 , 795 P2d 579 (1990); Silver Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Employ. Div., 95 Or App 635 , 770 P2d 607 (1989); and Pembroke v. … I could’ve, yes.” *170 We cautioned, in Bremer v.

State v. Perrodin

315 Or. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 20, 2021

Brown, 96 Or App 171, 772 P2d 429 (1989), he contended that “[o]nce raised, this is on the State to prove the validity of that warrant.” … In State 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.

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.