Case law

Fischer v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

76 Or. App. 656 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 1985

Tektronix Corp. v. Twist, 62 Or App 602 , 661 P2d 562 , rev den 295 Or 259 (1983). In Knapp v. … Cascade Steel Rolling Mills v. Madril, 62 Or App 598 , 661 P2d 564 , rev den 295 Or 541 (1983), applied the rule in holding that previous overpayments on a prior claim could not be offset in a later claim. Forney 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.

Willamette Industries, Inc. v. Titus

151 Or. App. 76 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 1997

Roseburg Forest Products v. Long, 325 Or 305, 309 , 937 P2d 517 (1997) (citing Runft v. SAIF, 303 Or 493, 500 , 739 P2d 12 (1987)). … Roseburg Forest Products v. Long, 325 Or 305, 313 , 937 P2d 517 (1997). See also Beneficiaries of Strametz v. Spectrum Motorwerks, 325 Or 439,444-45 , 939 P2d 617 (1997); Boise Cascade Corp. v.

Reed v. Del Chemical Corp.

40 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 1979

"Under the statute a previous order can only be modified on the Board’s own motion.” Morton v. N.W. Foundry, 36 Or App 259, 261 , 584 P2d 346 , rev den (1978). … The Board affirmed the order of dismissal. *604 In Fields v. Workmen’s Comp. Board, 276 Or 805 , 556 P2d 651 (1976), the Supreme Court said "* * * we wish to make it clear that the Workmen’s Compensation.

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.

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.

Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Nichols

186 Or. App. 664 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 6, 2003

Andrews v. Tektronix, Inc., 323 Or 154 , 160-61 n 1, 915 P2d 972 (1996) (emphasis in original). … In Kaiel v.

Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Kearns

70 Or. App. 583 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 31, 1984

It also argues that, even if the Board’s rule is correct, it has carried its burden of proof here. The “last injurious exposure rule” was first adopted by this court in Mathis v. … EBI’s June 23, 1982, total denial of claimant’s previously accepted February, 1979, injury was correctly rejected by the Board. Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or 788 , 670 P2d 1027 (1983).

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).

Eli v. Lampert

194 Or. App. 280 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 21, 2004

Whitaker v. Bank of Newport, 313 Or 450, 455 , 836 P2d 695 (1992). … Eli v.

Pietrzykowski v. Albertsons, Inc.

199 Or. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 4, 2005

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 205 , 752 P2d 312 (1988) (footnote omitted); see also Christman v. … to be supported by substantial evidence. 4 The board does cite Crowder v.

Staffing Services, Inc. v. Kalaveras

241 Or. App. 130 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 2011

In Karjalainen v. … After this case was submitted, in Hopkins v.

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.

State v. Black

80 Or. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 18, 1986

See State v. Valdez, supra, 277 Or at 625-26 ; State v. Brown, 31 Or App 501, 505 , 570 P2d 1001 (1977). … See ORS 131.605(1); 161.515; 161.615. 2 The officer’s notebook entry concerning the dispatcher’s report merely states, “Writer received a radio report via the radio of a light brown over dark brown Ford Escort traveling at

Nielsen v. Wilson

13 Or. App. 306 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 14, 1973

Seufert et al. v. Stadelman et al., 178 Or 646 , 167 P2d 936 (1946); Sowell v. Workmen’s Comp. Bd., supra. … Buell 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.

Montez v. Roloff Farms, Inc.

175 Or. App. 532 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 2001

Under ORS 656.298(7), we review orders of the Board for errors of law, ORS 183.482(7), and for substantial evidence, ORS 183.482(8). Garcia v. … Rather, we require a Board’s order to be a “reasoned opinion based on explicit findings of fact” and to contain an “explanation of why facts supported by evidence lead to its conclusion.” Armstrong v.

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).

Lyke v. Lane County

70 Or. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 1984

Fifth Avenue Corp. v. Washington Co., 282 Or 591, 618 , 581 P2d 50 (1978). … Overton v. Benton County, 61 Or App 667 , 658 P2d 574 (1983).

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.