Case law

O'NEAL v. Tewell

119 Or. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1993

In Spivey v. … Shoulders v. SAIF, 300 Or 606, 611 , 716 P2d 751 (1986). Here, the claim for compensation had been accepted. The only issue concerned the amount of benefits.

Dye v. Employment Department

203 Or. App. 39 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 7, 2005

ORS 183.482(8)(c); Armstrong v. … Schoch v. Leupold & Stevens, 325 Or 112, 118 , 934 P2d 410 (1997) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Drew v.

E. DUARTE v. SAIF Corporation

179 Or. App. 737 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 27, 2002

If the Board found that he failed to meet his burden of production, we would remand its order for reconsideration in light of our opinion in Seeley v. Sisters of Providence, 179 Or App 723 , 41 P3d 1093 (2002). … Because we cannot determine which course the Board took, we reverse and remand to allow it to clarify and, if appropriate, reconsider its order. See Labor Force v. Frierson, 169 Or App 573, 578 , 9 P3d 128 (2000).

State v. Jones

275 Or. App. 771 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 2015

The court concluded that “Dempster's per se rule is inconsistent with the subsequent development of the Fourth Amendment attenuation exception set out in Brown v. … State v.

Babcock v. Employment Division

25 Or. App. 661 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 1976

Geraths v. Employment Division, 24 Or App 201 , 544 P2d 1066 (1976); Romanosky v. Employment Div., 21 Or App 785, 536 P2d 1277 (1975); Georgia-Pacific v. Employment Div., 21 Or App 135, 533 P2d 829 (1975). … App. 638, 641 , 95 N.E.2d 214 ; Boynton Cab Co. v. Giese (1941), 237 Wisc. 237, 296 N.W. 630 . * * *” 147 Ind App at 44. Geraths was decided by this court after the decision in this case was handed down by the board.

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).

Oregon Boiler Works v. Lott

115 Or. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 26, 1992

The Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. … Boise Cascade v. Starbuck, 296 Or 238, 243 , 675 P2d 1044 (1984); Bracke v. Baza’r, 293 Or 239, 250 , 646 P2d 1330 (1982), mod 294 Or 483 , 658 P2d 1158 (1983); Progress Quarries v.

Cole v. Chemeketa Community College

58 Or. App. 77 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 1982

Henthorn v. Grand Prairie School Dist., 287 Or 683 , 601 P2d 1243 (1979), involved a probationary teacher who sought a writ of review challenging the defendant school board’s refusal to renew his employment contract. … In Maddox v. Clac. Co. Sch. Dist. No. 25, 293 Or 27 , 643 P2d 1253 (1982), a terminated probationary teacher filed an action for breach of contract.

SAIF Corp. v. Fitzsimmons

159 Or. App. 464 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 7, 1999

Abu-Adas v. Employment Dept., 325 Or 480, 485 , 940 P2d 1219 (1997). We begin with the text and context of the rule. … See Hadley v.

Hempel v. SAIF Corp.

100 Or. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 3, 1990

It was received by the Board on November 7. … Anderson v. Publishers Paper Co., 93 Or App 516, 518 , 763 P2d 398 (1988). Good cause in this context means “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,” as those terms are used in ORCP 71B(1). Barr v.

Herron v. Employment Division

24 Or. App. 531 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 1, 1976

Claimant appeals from a decision of the Employment Appeals Board (Board) denying him a hearing on the merits of his unemployment claim. … Def. v. Air Poll. Auth., 16 Or App 638 , 519 P2d 1271 , Sup Ct review denied (1974). Jurisdiction for review is in the circuit court where a proper record can be made. See, Amazon Coop. Tenants v. Bd. High.

Martinez v. Employment Division

54 Or. App. 95 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 5, 1981

See Palen v. State Bd. of Higher Education, 18 Or App 442 , 525 P2d 1047 , rev den (1974). Our analysis requires that this case be remanded to the Board for reconsideration. … See also, McPherson v. Employment Division, 285 Or 541 , 591 P2d 1381 (1979); Megdal v.

Birrer v. Principal Financial Group

172 Or. App. 654 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 28, 2001

After this case was submitted, we reversed the Board’s decision in Blamires v. … See also Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 206 , 752 P2d 312 (1988).

Johnson v. SAIF

307 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 7, 2020

Johnson v. … The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld the apportionment, rejecting the claimant’s contention that she was entitled to an award for her full range-of-motion impairment. In a per curiam opinion, Caren v.

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. v. City of Portland

214 Or. App. 534 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 2007

Board of Forestry, 192 Or App 126, 128 , 83 P3d 966 (2004), rev’d on other grounds, 339 Or 136 , 117 P3d 990 (2005). An error is plain if, among other things, its erroneousness is not reasonably in dispute. State v. … Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 US 166, 179 , 101 S Ct 453 , 77 L Ed 2d 368 (1980) (quoting Flemming v. Nestor, 363 US 603, 612 , 80 S Ct 1367 , 4 L Ed 2d 1435 (1960)).

Roy v. McCormack Pacific Co.

171 Or. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 27, 2000

Moreover, claimant did not seek reconsideration of the Board’s order when it failed to address the issue. An argument that is not raised to the Board is deemed waived. See Oregon Lox Co. v. … In Albany General Hospital v.

Babcock v. Sherwood School District 88J

193 Or. App. 449 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 2004

See Sergeant’s Towing, Inc. v. … See City of Salem v.

State v. McHenry

161 Or. App. 606 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 7, 1999

evidence within the meaning of Brown and, therefore, the state did not need to lay a Brown foundation before eliciting that diagnosis from the doctors. … See Davis v.

Murdoch v. SAIF Corp.

223 Or. App. 144 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2008

Claimant seeks judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (board) denying his occupational disease claim. … We conclude that the board’s decision is not supported by substantial reason; the facts do not lead logically to the board’s legal conclusion. See Drew v.

Guerrero v. Stayton Canning Co.

92 Or. App. 209 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 20, 1988

The Board agreed with the referee but held that the denial was premature under Roller v. … An employer may not issue a partial denial of a previously accepted inseparable condition while the claim is still open. *213 Roller v. Weyerhaeuser Co., supra; Safstrom v. Riedel International, Inc., supra.