Case law

Kiewit Pacific v. Ennis

119 Or. App. 123 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 31, 1993

Employer first argues that the Board’s order is inadequate for review under the rule stated in Home Plate, Inc. v. … The Board rejected that finding, but made no finding of its own regarding pay for travel time. If the Board intended its action to be a finding of fact on the issue, it should say so. In Bernards v.

Psu. Ass'n of University Professors v. Psu.

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

That was the logic adopted by the Employment Relations Board (board) in the order under review. The board relied on E.E.O.C. v. … Co. v.

YRC Worldwide, Inc. v. Corrigan

333 Or. App. 751 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 10, 2024

BACKGROUND We draw the background facts from the board’s fac- tual findings, which the parties do not challenge on judicial review. See King v. … Luper v.

SAIF Corp. v. Bowen

136 Or. App. 222 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 1995

This case is on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in the light of Martin v. City of Albany, 320 Or 175 , 880 P2d 926 (1994), and Niccum v. South Coast Lumber Co., 320 Or 189 , 880 P2d 923 (1994). SAIF v. … Oregon Laws 1995, chapter 332, sections 41 and 50; Newell v. SAIF, 136 Or App 280 , 902 P2d 600 (1995). Accordingly, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider this question.

Dubrow v. Employment Department

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

See Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 295 , 787 P2d 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 P3d 95 (2008).

Horn v. Timber Products, Inc.

12 Or. App. 365 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 5, 1973

Jackson v. SAIF, 7 Or App 109 , 490 P2d 507 (1971). … Wingfield v. National Biscuit Co., 8 Or App 408 , 494 P2d 905 (1972).

Hamilton v. SAIF Corp.

256 Or. App. 256 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 2013

We then followed Livesley in McAdams v. … See Damis v.

Werth v. Employment Dept.

237 Or. App. 520 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 29, 2010

We take the following, undisputed facts from the board's order as supplemented by the record. See Lane v. Employment Dept., 229 Or.App. 556, 558 , 213 P.3d 9 (2009). … best guarantee of her safety. [6] See, e.g., State v.

Stacy v. Employment Department

240 Or. App. 183 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

Stevenson v. Morgan, 17 Or App 428, 433 , 522 P2d 1204 (1974). … See Pinto v.

Johnson v. State Accident Insurance Fund

5 Or. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 8, 1971

Logsdon v. State and Dell, 234 Or 66, 71 , 380 P2d 111 (1963). … Demitro v. State Industrial Acc. Com., 110 Or 110, 112 , 223 P 238 (1924).

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.

Bivens v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

6 Or. App. 100 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 15, 1971

See Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 4 Or App 178 , 471 P2d 831 , 476 P2d 931 (1970), Sup Ct review denied (1971). … Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hosp., supra, 4 Or App at 193. 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.

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

291 Or. App. 117 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 4, 2018

Reviewing the board's order for substantial evidence, substantial reason, and legal error, Luton v. Willamette Valley Rehabilitation Center , 272 Or. App. 487 , 490, 356 P.3d 150 (2015), we affirm. … In response, SAIF 4 asserted that it was permitted to recover the overpayment because, under Gwynn v. SAIF , 304 Or. 345 , 351, 745 P.2d 775 (1987), and SAIF v. Grover , 152 Or.

Smith v. Amalgamated Sugar Company

25 Or. App. 243 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 1976

In such rejected cases where the claimant prevails finally in a hearing before the referee or in a review by the board itself, then the referee or board shall allow a reasonable attorney’s fee; however, in the event a dispute … The case at hand is analogous to Grudle v. S.A.I.F., 4 Or App 326 , 479 P2d 250 (1971), in which we stated: "Claimant was not denied his claim for compensation. His case was not a rejected one.

Kalenius v. City of Corvallis

313 Or. App. 447 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 21, 2021

v. … We noted, citing Karjalainen v. Curtis Johnston & Pennywise, Inc., 208 Or App 674, 681, 146 P3d 336 (2006), rev den, 342 Or 473 (2007) (construing the 452 Kalenius v.

SAIF Corp. v. Roles

111 Or. App. 597 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 26, 1992

Dolph v. Barney, 5 Or 191, 211 (1874), aff'd 97 US 652 (1878). Subject matter jurisdiction depends on whether the tribunal has the authority to make an inquiry. … See Goss v. Wilkins, 80 Or App 241 , 721 P2d 884 , rev den 302 Or 35 (1986). The Board’s reliance on Weyerhaeuser Co. v.

Carson v. Employment Division

25 Or. App. 589 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 1, 1976

Cantrell v. Employment Division, 24 Or App 215 , 545 P2d 143 , Sup Ct review denied (1976); Stevenson v. Morgan, 17 Or App 428 , 522 P2d 1204 (1974). … Brotherton v. Morgan, 17 Or App 435, 439 , 522 P2d 1210 (1974); Stevenson v. Morgan, supra. On the basis of the record in this case we affirm the board’s decision. Affirmed.

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.

Von Poppenheim v. Morgan

9 Or. App. 495 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 1972

The Supreme Court in Cameron v. … Affirmed. ① See Unemployment Comm. v. Dan River, 197 Va 816, 91 SE2d 642 (1956); Moore v. Com’r of Employment Sec., 197 Tenn 444, 273 SW2d 703 (1954).