Case law

McAlpine v. Multnomah County

131 Or. App. 136 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 26, 1994

Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, supra; Buchler v. … Torres v. Pacific Power and Light, 84 Or App 412, 415 , 734 P2d 364 , rev dismissed 304 Or 1 (1987) (negligence per se); Dunlap v.

Owen v. SAIF Corp.

77 Or. App. 368 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 1986

The application of that statute has been considered under a variety of circumstances, in Mikolich v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 212 Or 36 , 316 P2d 812 , 318 P2d 274 (1957), Mayes v. … Had the claim been properly closed by determination order, the worker would have been entitled to another hearing on the issue of the extent of his disability, Coombs v.

State v. Hunt

119 Or. App. 452 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1993

State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749, 756 , 534 P2d 501 (1975), purported to overrule State v. Brown, supra. In State v. Farley, supra, 301 Or at 674 , the court held that it had erred in overruling Brown in Hammang . … We have since cited and relied on the rule in Brown without further discussion. See, e.g., State v. Schaffran, 95 Or App 329, 332 , 769 P2d 230 (1989).

Department of Consumer & Business Services v. Muliro

267 Or. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 10, 2014

See Benson v. … Id.', see also Ebbtide Enterprises v.

BASIN TIRE SERVICE, INC. v. Minyard

240 Or. App. 715 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 16, 2011

Corp., Inc. v. Watkins, 347 Or 687, 690-91 , 227 P3d 1134 (2010). … See, e.g., Robinson v.

Johnson v. State Accident Insurance Fund

13 Or. App. 421 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 1973

In Bailey v. … In Griese v.

State v. Stewart

123 Or. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 1993

Defendant’s argument relies primarily on City of Pendleton v. Standerfer, 297 Or 725 , 688 P2d 68 (1984). See also State v. Grenvik, 291 Or 99 , 628 P2d 1195 (1981); Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. … State v. Farmer, 317 Or 220, 224 , 856 P2d 623 (1993); see also State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990).

Schlosser v. Clackamas Water District

60 Or. App. 617 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 1982

Foster v. Schnell Refrigeration Co., 280 Or 411, 414 , 571 P2d 497 (1977). In early October, 1980, the Board of Directors of defendant (District) authorized the sale of a lot and building on St. Helens Road. … The letter gave notice that the Board would not entertain a bid less than $160,000. The letter contains no words of promise, commitment or undertaking, Southworth v.

Lankford v. Copeland

141 Or. App. 138 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 1996

We conclude that the Board did not have jurisdiction in this case. The facts as found by the ALJ and adopted by the Board are not disputed by any party. Copeland breeds horses and races them. … See Callahan v. Employment Division, 97 Or App 234 , 776 P2d 21 (1989).

Schuler v. Beaverton School District No. 48J

164 Or. App. 320 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 1999

The Board reversed the ALJ, noting that the case relied on by the ALJ, SAIF v. … The Board explained, relying on Dietz v.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Culwell

65 Or. App. 332 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 9, 1983

Gevurtz v. Myers, 10 Or App 491, 493 , 500 P2d 730 (1972). Further, a statute should be construed, if possible, to avoid an absurd or unreasonable result. Rogue Valley Memorial Hosp. v. … We hold, therefore, that disputes over attorney fees awarded by the Board must be filed in the circuit court pursuant to ORS 656.388(2) forthwith, but in no event later than 30 days after the date of the Board’s order on

State v. Coleman

167 Or. App. 86 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 3, 2000

State v. Brown, 301 Or 268, 277 , 721 P2d 1357 (1986). That per se rule has come to be known as the “automobile exception.” … In the years following Brown and Kock , this court further refined the automobile exception analysis in State v. Cromwell, 109 Or App 654 , 820 P2d 888 (1991), State v.

Hedrick v. Employment Division

25 Or. App. 89 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 12, 1976

He asserts that the order of the Employment Appeals Board is not supported by substantial evidence and that petitioner did not, in fact, leave work without good cause. We said in McCain v. … The Board’s determination will be affirmed if there is * * * substantial evidence in the record to support that decision. ORS 183.480(7). Balduyck v. Morgan, 9 Or App 363 , 497 P2d 377 (1972).”

Erzen v. State Accident Insurance Fund

40 Or. App. 771 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 25, 1979

SAIF argues that the Board’s order was superseded by the following language in the Board’s opinion in Flyways, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. … . * * *” We affirmed the Board’s order by a per curiam opinion, citing Carson v. State Indus. Acc. Comm., supra.

Counts v. International Paper Co.

146 Or. App. 768 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 5, 1997

The exception to that proposition is illustrated by Brooks v. D & R Timber, 55 Or App 688, 692 , 639 P2d 700 (1982). In *771 Brooks , the claimant suffered a compensable left knee injury while at work. Id. at 691 . … Claimant does not question any other factual findings made by the Board.

Rinne v. PSRB

326 Or. App. 777 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2023

Nacey v. Board of Massage Therapists, 287 Or App 228, 233, 401 P3d 275 (2017). … In reviewing PSRB’s order, “[o]ur duty is to evaluate the board’s logic, not to supply it.” Knotts v. PSRB, 250 Or App 448, 455, 280 P3d 1030 (2012) (citation omitted).

Petersburg Education Ass'n v. Petersburg School District No. 14

23 Or. App. 482 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 1975

Tupper v. Fairview Hospital, 22 Or App 523 , 540 P2d 401 (1975); Schlichting v. Bergstrom, 13 Or App 562 , 511 P2d 846 (1973). … . * * * [T~\he jurisdiction of the Board [is] limited to whether or not the discharges, were for union activities or affiliations of the employees.” National Labor Relations Bd. v.

Preston v. Wonder Bread

96 Or. App. 613 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 1989

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). The Board found that claimant began working as a bakery worker for Wonder Bread in 1979. … Weller v. Union Carbide Corp., 288 Or 27 , 602 P2d 259 (1980). The Board erred as a matter of law, because it applied its findings to the wrong standard by labeling a “predisposition” as the “condition” at issue.

SAIF v. Blankenship

314 Or. App. 34 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 18, 2021

Fred Meyer, Inc., v. Hayes, 325 Or 592, 598, 943 P2d 197 (1997). Risks are generally categorized as employment- related risks, personal risks, or neutral risks. Phil A. Livesley Co. v. … The board did not err in concluding that 38 SAIF v.

Reid v. SAIF Corp.

241 Or. App. 496 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 16, 2011

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, contending that the board erred in upholding SAIF’s denial of her combined condition involving the cervical spine. … Hopkins v.