Case law

Mercer Industries v. Rose

100 Or. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 17, 1990

On review, the Board assigned responsibility to Mercer but refused to award attorney fees to claimant. The Board stated that SAIF v. … We do not read Short to overrule SAIF v. Phipps, supra, sub silentio. The Board also cited Cascade Corporation v. Rose, 92 Or App 663 , 759 P2d 1127 (1988); Hunt v.

Vandehey v. Pumilite Glass & Building Co.

35 Or. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 5, 1978

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the referee’s opinion. Claimant appeals. We affirm. … Claimant relies on Cavins v. SAIF, supra.

Oullette v. Employment Division

34 Or. App. 591 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 30, 1978

In Geraths v. … See Palen v. State Bd. of Higher Education, 18 Or App 442 , 525 P2d 1047 , rev den (1974).

Blisserd v. State Accident Insurance Fund

6 Or. App. 111 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 15, 1971

Coday v. Willamette Tug & Barge, 250 Or 39 , 440 P2d 224 (1968). … Although this court gives respectful consideration to the findings of the hearing officer, this court, the circuit court and the Board are not bound by those findings. Hannan v.

SAIF v. Houk

316 Or. App. 568 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 22, 2021

For the reasons recently discussed in Bruntz-Ferguson v. Liberty Mutual Ins., 310 Or App 618, 485 P3d 903 (2021), SAIF v. Lynn, 315 Or App 720, 502 P3d 1172 (2021), and Miles v. … SAIF v.

State v. Volynets-Vasylchenko

246 Or. App. 632 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 23, 2011

In State v. … Brown, 241 Or App 226, 232 , 250 P3d 386 (2011); and that the error did not usurp the jury’s factfinding function because the same jury acquitted the defendant on other charges, State v.

Bebout v. State Accident Insurance Fund

22 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 1975

See Waibel v. Compensation Dept., 3 Or App 38 , 471 P2d 826 (1970), and citations therein. In Heide/Parker v. T.C.I. … See Casper v. SAIF, 13 Or App 464 , 511 P2d 451 (1973); Boyd v. Francis Ford, Inc., 12 Or App 26 , 504 P2d 1387 (1973); Rosencrantz v. Insurance Service, 2 Or App 225 , 467 P2d 664 (1970). See also Gumbrecht v.

Lane Transit District v. Lane County

146 Or. App. 109 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 1997

See Boytano v. Fritz, 321 Or 498, 501-02 , 901 P2d 835 (1995). In Foster v. … In Rose v.

Gunsolley v. Bushby

19 Or. App. 884 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 23, 1974

The relevant authorities are: Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593 , 92 S Ct 2694 , 92 S Ct 2717 , 33 L Ed 2d 570 (1972); Papadopoulos v. … of Regents v.

Gabriel v. Everett

10 Or. App. 250 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 7, 1972

City of Portland v. Garner et al, 226 Or 80, 90 , 358 P2d 495 (1961). The scope of review before the Civil Service Board is a limited one. As the court said in Garner-. … Winslow v. Minto * * * [ 164 Or 495 , 102 P2d 919 (1940)].” 226 Or at 92 . See also Personnel Division v. St. Clair, 10 Or App 106 , 498 P2d 809 (1972).

In THE MATTER OF MORTON v. Northwest Foundry and Furnace

36 Or. App. 259 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 18, 1978

See Barackman v. General Telephone, 25 Or App 293 , 548 P2d 1341 (1976). However, here the Board neither increased nor decreased the previous award and thus its order is not subject to appeal. … the case may be, made by the board on its own motion.”

SAIF Corp. v. Pruitt

198 Or. App. 253 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 9, 2005

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 206 , 752 P2d 312 (1998). That relatively deferential standard of review is conditioned by our holding in Dietz v. … Accord SAIF v. Bryant, 173 Or App 402, 406 , 21 P3d 1104 (2001).

McFetridge v. Wieck

7 Or. App. 389 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 1971

See also, Edwards v. Union H. S. Dist. No. 8, 198 Or 611 , 258 P2d 148 (1953). The trial court concluded that the election was ,in all respects valid and that the school board was *391 authorized to sell the bonds. … oral testimony here to supplement the minutes of the August 8 meeting to determine whether or not the common eon-sent required by ORS 332.045 for the holding of that meeting was obtained. *394 The Supreme Court in McBee v.

Sisters of Providence v. McGuire

183 Or. App. 503 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 28, 2002

Marvin Wood Products v. … Therefore, the board did not err in affirming the ARU and ALJ. Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 206 , 752 P2d 312 (1988).

Dawes v. Summers

118 Or. App. 15 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 1993

The Board adhered to the referee’s holding that, under Safeway Stores v. … The Board adopted this finding, and claimant does not challenge it on review. The statutes have since been amended. Or Laws 1990, ch 2, §§ 15, 23. See Oliver v. Norstar Inc., 116 Or App 333 , 840 P2d 1382 (1992).

Sperry, Inc. v. Wells

127 Or. App. 700 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 4, 1994

See Georgia-Pacific v. Piwowar, 305 Or 494 , 753 P2d 948 (1988). … See International Paper Co. v. Pearson, 106 Or App 121 , 806 P2d 189 (1991).

Rogers v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

153 Or. App. 436 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 22, 1998

Cases such as Smith v. SAIF Corp., 302 Or 396 , 730 P2d 30 (1986), and Fred Meyer, Inc. v. … See SAIF v. Frank, 153 Or App 514 , 960 P2d 873 (1998).

Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Rodriguez

97 Or. App. 500 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 12, 1989

Employer argues that the Board’s adoption of the quoted rule conflicts with the “course of employment” test articulated in Rogers v. SAIF, 289 Or 633 , 616 P2d 485 (1980). … Rogers v. SAIF, supra, 289 Or at 642 . We see no conflict between the two approaches under the facts here. The Board found that claimant left immediately after his discharge.

Rose v. Saif Corp.

200 Or. App. 654 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 2005

In Yancy v. … The board agreed, and we affirmed.

State v. Koppenhafer

59 Or. App. 213 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 1982

That this said premises is located on the south side of Echo Way and that the front door is dark brown wood which faces north. … The United States Supreme Court held in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 US 108 , 84 S Ct 1509 , 12 L Ed 2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v.