Case law

Dubrow v. Employment Dept.

242 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 6, 2011

See Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or. 292, 295 , 787 P.2d 884 (1990) (appellate courts should not reject the board's view of the evidence and impose their own). … The question before us is whether the record reasonably supports the factual finding the board actually made. Sen v. Employment Dept., 218 Or.App. 629, 634 , 180 P.3d 95 (2008).

Walter v. Scherzinger

193 Or. App. 355 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 2004

See Walter v. … See generally Knapp v.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Bates

94 Or. App. 666 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 11, 1989

Claimant was justified in actively participating before the Board to protect her right to compensation. She is entitled to insurer-paid fees. ORS 656.382(2); 2 see Stovall v. … Sally Salmon Seafood, 84 Or App 612 , 735 P2d 18 (1987), aff’d 306 Or 25 , 757 P2d 410 (1988); *671 Petshow v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 76 Or App 563 , 710 P2d 781 (1985), rev den 300 Or 722 (1986); Nat. Farm. Ins. v.

Columbia River Television v. Multnomah County

70 Or. App. 448 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 24, 1985

See Lyke v. Lane County, 70 Or App 82 , 688 P2d 411 (1984). The legislative scheme which establishes LUBA contemplates statewide uniformity in its operation. … Far West Landscaping v. Modern Merchandising, 287 Or 653 , 601 P2d 1237 (1979). Affirmed. The authority of LUBA to make this rule is not challenged. See McPherson v. Employment Division, 285 Or 541 , 591 P2d 1381 (1979).

Hamilton v. State Accident Insurance Fund

11 Or. App. 344 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 1972

Both the trial judge and the Board relied on Larson v. Compensation Department, 251 Or 478 . 445 P2d 486 (1968), in concluding that claimant had not complied with ORS 656.271(1). … Livingston v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 200 Or 468, 472 , 266 P2d 684 (1954); Peters v. Briggs & Sons, 10 Or App 310, 314 , 499 P2d 1361 (1972); Waibel v. Compensation Dept., 3 Or App 38 , 471 P2d 826 (1970).

Beaverton School District No. 48 v. Employment Division

29 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 23, 1977

Aschenbrenner v. Employment Div., 29 Or App 345 , 563 P2d 757 (1977); Tolonen v. Employment Div., 25 Or App 575 , 549 P2d 1294 (1976); Weidert v. Employment Division, 22 Or App 474 , 539 P2d 1116 (1975). … The decision of the Board is reversed as "unlawful in substance.” ORS 657.282; 183.482(8)(a). Cf. Chamblee v. Employment Div., 23 Or App 53 , 541 P2d 165 (1975).

State v. Yock

49 Or. App. 749 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 1980

Brown, 262 Or 442 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972), and subsequently defined with respect to permissive joinder of charges under ORS 132.560(2) in State v. Fitzgerald, 267 Or 266 , 516 P2d 1280 (1973). … If, however, Brown is no longer the current explanation of Article I, § 12 in light of Hammang and ORS 131.515, we are left with the "same evidence” test articulated in State v.

Gaffey v. State

55 Or. App. 186 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 14, 1981

The Supreme Court, in Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. … Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., supra, 280 Or at 105 .

Stevens v. State Accident Insurance Fund

20 Or. App. 412 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 18, 1975

On March 18, 1974, SAIF requested a Board review of the referee’s order, and on July 30, 1974, the Board entered its order affirming the order of the referee. … Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 4 Or App 178, 471 P2d 831 , 476 P2d 931 (1970), Sup Ct review denied (1971); Muncy v. SAIF, 19 Or App 783 , 529 P2d 407 (1974).

Crampton v. Harmon

20 Or. App. 676 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 31, 1975

Mohr v. State Board of Education, 236 Or 398, 401 , 388 P2d 463 (1964). ‘Informational’ hearings are conducted like hearings before legislative committees that are considering proposed legislation. … Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sinderman, 408 US 593 , 92 S Ct 2694 , 33 L Ed 2d 570 (1972).

State v. Mitchell

273 Or. App. 207 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 19, 2015

Those three factors, which were adopted from Brown v. … See State v.

SAIf Corp. v. Alton

171 Or. App. 491 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 20, 2000

See SAIF v. … See SAIF v.

SAIF Corp. v. Orr

101 Or. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 23, 1990

Grant v. State Industrial Acc. Com., 102 Or at 45; see 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law [§ 13.22].’ ” 296 Or at 251 . The Board considered the relevant factors. … It has been held that the Board must make express findings on that issue. SAIF v. Stephen, 308 Or 41,47-48 , 774 P2d 1103 (1989).

Hiles v. STATE COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT

2 Or. App. 506 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 4, 1970

See also Barr v. State Compensation Dept., 1 Or App 432 , 463 P2d 871 (1970). … Beaudry v.

Roseburg Forest Products v. McDonald

116 Or. App. 448 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 18, 1992

Employer relies on Georgia-Pacific v. Hughes, 305 Or 286 , 751 P2d 775 (1988), and Hunter v. … In Georgia-Pacific v.

State v. Sleeper

36 Or. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 18, 1978

Likewise, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial of the municipal violation. 2 Consequently, the DUII and CAID charges could not be tried together and we conclude under State v. … Brown, supra, that the second prosecution for the CAID charge was not constitutionally prohibited. Affirmed.

City of Eugene v. McCann

248 Or. App. 527 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 7, 2012

Young v. State of Oregon, 246 Or App 115, 119 , 265 P3d 32 (2011). … See, e.g., Wright v.

Dancingbear v. SAIF

314 Or. App. 538 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 2021

Arvidson v. Liberty Northwest Ins. … We review the board’s interpretation of a statute for errors of law. See Caren v.

Lemmon v. Clemens

57 Or. App. 583 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 1982

In Meyer v. … In Flury v. Land Use Board, 50 Or App 263 , 623 *589 P2d 671 (1981), involving a proposed subdivision, we held that only the affected land needed to be considered in determining the predominant soil classifications.

Giusti Wine Co. v. Adams

102 Or. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 1990

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board after remand. In Giusti Wine Co. v. … Employer argues that the Board’s conclusion on good cause is inconsistent with Norton v.