Case law

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.

Simon v. PIE Nationwide, Inc.

142 Or. App. 411 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 31, 1996

Claimant next assigns error to the Board’s application of DIF’s standards under the temporary rules, which claimant challenges as improperly adopted. In Ferguson v. U.S. … SAIF concedes error under Gallino v.

City of Albany v. Cary

201 Or. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 10, 2005

Smirnoff v. SAIF, 188 Or App 438 , 72 P3d 118 (2003). … In Wayne-Dalton Corp. v.

SAIF v. Ward

307 Or. App. 337 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 21, 2020

For the reasons described below, we affirm the board’s order. We review the board’s order pursuant to ORS 656.298(7)1 and ORS 183.482(8).2 Akins v. … See Comcast Corp. v.

Jansen v. Atiyeh

89 Or. App. 557 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 10, 1988

Jansen v. Atiyeh, 302 Or 314 , 728 P2d 1382 (1986).” 87 Or App at 619 n 4. The Board presents alternative arguments. … We conclude that, because of the defective appeal of the supplemental judgment awarding attorney fees, Jansen v.

International Paper Co. v. Wright

80 Or. App. 444 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 23, 1986

The Board’s December 27, 1984, order merely adhered to and republished the November 30 order on review; it did not “stay” the order on review or extend the time for seeking review. See Fischer v. … Shoulders v. SAIF, 300 Or 606 , 716 P2d 751 (1986) (when a claim is determined to be compensable, compensation is considered to have been awarded for the purpose of ORS 656.382(2)).

Greenbriar Ag Management v. Lemus

156 Or. App. 499 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 14, 1998

See Ebbtide Enterprises v. Tucker, 303 Or 459, 464 , 738 P2d 194 (1987). The Board explained: “It is apparent from the record that, at the time of the January 24 letter to Dr. … See Ebbtide Enterprises, 303 Or at 464-65 ; *505 SAIF v. Abbott, 103 Or App 49, 52-53 , 769 P2d 378 (1990); Newport Elks Club v. Hays, 92 Or App 604, 607 , 759 P2d 327 , rev den 307 Or 245 (1988).

United Parcel Service v. Likos

143 Or. App. 486 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 18, 1996

However, relying on Fossum, Bracke, and Progress Quarries v. … Compare Beneficiaries of Strametz; Bennett v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., *491 128 Or App 71, 78 , 875 P2d 1176 (1994). 1 Accordingly, the Board erred in assigning responsibility to UPS.

Maddox v. Clackamas County School District No. 25

51 Or. App. 639 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 13, 1981

There is no review of the reason for discharge, or the good faith of the board. 4 In Henthorn v. … See Brooks v. Dierker, 275 Or 619 , 552 P2d 533 (1976); Jordan v. City Council of Lake Oswego, 49 Or App 31 , 618 P2d 1298 (1980), rev den (1981). Count I was properly dismissed.

MacKey v. MacKey

1 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 7, 1969

Brown, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Brown & Burt, Salem. BRANCHFIELD, Judge. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Linda L. … Henry v. Henry, 156 Or. 679 , 69 P.2d 280 (1937); Gonyea v. Gonyea, supra. The reasons behind the foregoing rules have been set out with great clarity in Bennehoff v.

Mills v. Boeing Co.

212 Or. App. 678 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 16, 2007

As we explained in Columbia Forest Products v. … The board therefore did not err under Altamirano by concluding that the denial had legal effect. Claimant also argues that the board impermissibly departed from George C. McCoy, 50 Van Natta 49 (1998). See Hays v.

City of Lake Oswego v. $23,232.23 in Cash

140 Or. App. 520 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 1996

Co., 153 Or 152, 158 , 56 P2d 318 (1936); Stokes v. Brown, 20 Or 530, 532 , 26 P 561 (1891). … Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., 280 Or 95, 100 , 570 P2d 52 (1977).

Nation v. Oregon Racing Commission

21 Or. App. 685 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 16, 1975

Campbell v. Bd. of Medical Exam., 16 Or App 381 , 518 P2d 1042 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974). … Remodeling Consult. v. Builders Bd., 19 Or App 794 , 528 P2d 1373 (1974), Sup Ct review denied (1975). Affirmed.

Lyday v. Liberty Northwest Insurance

115 Or. App. 668 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 21, 1992

In SAIF v. … We hold that the referee has authority to withdraw or abate a decision before the time for appeal to the Board has expired. See Farmers Insurance Group v. SAIF, 301 Or 612 , 724 P2d 799 (1986).

State v. Costanzo

94 Or. App. 516 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 21, 1988

The Supreme Court recently set the standard for submitting the affirmative defense of necessity to the jury in State v. Brown, 306 Or 599, 602-04 , 761 P2d 1300 (1988). … State v. Brown, supra, 306 Or at 606 . Because the court took the defenses from the jury, we evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the party seeking the instruction. State v. Brown, supra, 306 Or at 606 .

State v. McLain

158 Or. App. 419 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 17, 1999

In State v. … In State v.

Thurston v. State Accident Insurance Fund

7 Or. App. 273 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 1971

* * *” While, as Beaudry v. … The proceedings, both at the administrative and judicial level, which gave rise to this appeal took place prior to Lawton v. SAIF, 5 Or App 539 , 485 P2d 1104 (1971), and Johnson v.

Luckhurst v. Bank of America

167 Or. App. 11 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 3, 2000

On review, the Board reversed. … Simplot Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 321 Or 253, 261 , 897 P2d 316 (1995) (the court may not narrow the broad ordinary meaning of a. statutory term when the text and context do not justify the limitation).

SAIF Corp. v. Falconer

154 Or. App. 511 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 24, 1998

in DiBrito v. … We agree with the Board’s conclusions on these issues as well. As the Supreme Court held in Fuls 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.