Case law

Port of Portland Ocip v. Cierniak

207 Or. App. 571 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 2006

Bracke v. Baza’r, 293 Or 239, 248 , 646 P2d 1330 (1982). … Because the board left the inconsistency unaddressed, we cannot determine whether the board’s ultimate finding was valid. We considered a similar situation in SAIF v. January, 166 Or App 620 , 998 P2d 1286 (2000).

Groshong v. Montgomery Ward Co.

73 Or. App. 403 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 1985

Respondent cites Bend Millwork v. Dept. of Revenue, 285 Or 577 , 592 P2d 986 (1977), which discusses judicial notice, to support the Board’s use of the DOT. … The reasoning behind limiting the Board’s — or any agency’s — review to the record was stated in Rolfe 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)).

Deatherage v. Pernsteiner

239 Or. App. 161 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 24, 2010

In support of her constitutional argument, petitioner cited Vlandis v. … See Portello v.

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).

Mico, Inc. v. Wilbur-Ellis Co.

39 Or. App. 867 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 1979

Wakefield, Fries & Co. v. Parkhurst, 84 Or 483, 488 , 165 P 578 (1917). We conclude that it did not carry this burden. Mr. … We conclude that Brown’s letter of April 11, quoted above, merely refers to such an arrangement. Further, the contrary testimony of Mr.

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.

Opp v. Employment Department & Youssef, Inc.

242 Or. App. 673 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 2011

See, e.g., Hanshew v. … Western Panel Mfg, 163 Or App 151, 155-56 , 986 P2d 1249 (1999) (“[I]fthe Board found no facts to support its decision, we would have to remand the case to the Board for it to make findings.”); Employment Dept. 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.

Roy v. McCormack Pacific Co.

172 Or. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 28, 2001

SAIF petitions for reconsideration of our opinion in this workers’ compensation case, Roy v. McCormack Pacific Co., 171 Or App 526 , 17 P3d 550 (2000). Claimant also cross-petitions for reconsideration. … Relying on our holding in Chaffee 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.

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Eight

126 Or. App. 244 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 2, 1994

We will reverse the Board’s decision to grant claimant’s request for a continuance if the Board acted outside the range of discretion delegated to it by law or if it acted inconsistently with its own rules, because those … ORS 656.298(6); ORS 183.482(8)(b); Bronson v. Moonen, 270 Or 469, 476 , 528 P2d 82 (1974); Harsh Investment Corp. v.