Case law

State Ex Rel. Eckles v. Livermore

72 Or. App. 650 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 20, 1985

See State Bar v. Superior Court, 207 Cal 323, 278 P 432 (1929); Napa State Hospital v. Dasso, 153 Cal 698, 96 P 355 (1908); Idaho Water Resources Board v. … Kramer, 97 Idaho 535 , 548 P2d 35 (1976); Board of County Com’rs v. Idaho Health Fac. Auth., 96 Idaho 498 , 531 P2d 588 (1975); People v. Green, 382 Ill 577, 47 NE2d 465 (1943); Orbison v.

Lowe v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

207 Or. App. 532 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 2006

.]”); Humphers v. … Co. v.

Shaw v. Portland Laundry/Dry Cleaning

47 Or. App. 1041 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 1980

We do not, however, agree with all of that Board’s analysis. The Board found that claimant "has sought no employment or retraining assistance.” … At oral argument in this court claimant contended that Russell v. SAIF, 281 Or 353 , 574 P2d 653 (1978), is support for the Board’s unscheduled award. We do not read Russell as applying here.

Schlumberger Technologies, Inc. v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District

145 Or. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 1996

See Hanson v. Mosser, 247 Or 1, 9-10 , 427 P2d 97 (1967); Oregon Printing Ind. v. Chamberlain, 2 Or App 401, 405-07 , 467 P2d 657 , rev den (1970). … Robinson v. School District No. 1, 92 Or App 627, 631-32 , 759 P2d 1116 (1988); Payne v.

State v. Stanton

7 Or. App. 286 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 1971

See, State v. Brown, 1 Or App 322 , 461 P2d 836 (1969), Sup Ct review denied (1970); State v. Albertson, 1 Or App 486 , 462 P2d 458 (1969), Sup Ct review denied (1970). … State v. Bryant, 287 Minn 205, 177 NW2d 800 (1970); Brown v.

Conrady v. Lincoln County

260 Or. App. 115 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 18, 2013

See Bellikka v. … The closest they come to addressing the meaning of that statute is to quote from an opinion by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), Sherwood v.

State v. Lomack

307 Or. App. 596 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 18, 2020

Under ORS 144.102(4)(a), the board may impose PPS terms that it considers necessary to promote public safety or to assist in defendant’s reformation, given his individual circum- stances. Penn v. … Board of Parole, 365 Or 607, 635, 451 P3d 589 (2019).

State v. Adams

110 Or. App. 434 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 8, 1992

State v. … range provided *438 by rules of the State Sentencing Guidelines Board for the stipulated offender classification.

Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc. v. Parker

148 Or. App. 6 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 7, 1997

Relying on our opinion in Lebanon Plywood v. Seiber, 113 Or App 651 , 833 P2d 1367 (1992), *12 employer argues that the Board cannot order it to pay benefits to which claimant was not entitled. Again, we disagree. … In contrast, in Anodizing, Inc. v. Heath, 129 Or App 352 , 879 P2d 218 (1994), the claimant’s temporary disability benefits were due the date that they were ordered by the ALJ.

Theodore v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

125 Or. App. 172 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 1993

In Jefferson v. … In Meyers v.

Ware v. State Accident Insurance Fund

7 Or. App. 571 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 6, 1972

The defendant filed a timely motion to dismiss in the circuit court as contemplated by Beaudry v. … Jurisdiction to determine such questions is vested by statute, ORS 656.802 et seq, in the medical board of review and not in the circuit court. Johnson v. SAIF, 5 Or App 201 , 483 P2d 472 (1971).

Progress Quarries v. Vaandering

80 Or. App. 160 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 2, 1986

The Board correctly concluded that, in such a case, liability is assigned to the claimant’s employer at the time that the disease results in disability. Boise Cascade Corp. v. Starbuck, 296 Or 238 , 675 P2d 1044 (1984). … Petitioner cites Miville v.

Colwell v. Trotman

47 Or. App. 855 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 18, 1980

We agree with claimant, and we therefore reverse the Board’s order and remand the matter to the Board to award appropriate compensation. The last injurious exposure rule, which we adopted in Mathis v. … More recently, we stated in Holden v.

Garrelts v. Employment Division

21 Or. App. 437 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 19, 1975

Claimant seeks judicial review of an order of the Employment Appeals Board (Board) affirming the actions of the referee and the administrator, both of whom denied claimant’s unemployment benefits. ① A majority of the Board … Brotherton v. Morgan, 17 Or App 435 , 522 P2d 1210 (1974); Stevenson v. Morgan, supra.

Stacy v. Employment Dept.

240 Or. App. 183 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

Stevenson v. Morgan, 17 Or.App. 428, 433 , 522 P.2d 1204 (1974). The board's order denying unemployment benefits to claimant is based on alternative reasons and conclusions. … See Pinto v.

Legacy Health Systems & Legacy Health System v. Noble

232 Or. App. 93 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 18, 2009

Krushwitz v. McDonald’s Restaurants, 323 Or 520, 531 , 919 P2d 465 (1996) (citing Phil A. Livesley Co. v. Russ, 296 Or 25, 28 , 672 P2d 337 (1983)). … Further, we held in Hearthstone Manor v.

Westmoreland v. Iowa Beef Processors

70 Or. App. 642 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 7, 1984

We reverse the Board and reinstate the referee’s order. … We find that claimant has sufficiently shown a connection between his work and the injury. 1 See also Garbutt v.

Gosda v. J.B. Hunt Transportation

155 Or. App. 120 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 15, 1998

First, after the Board issued its decision in this case, we reversed the Board in Garibay v. Barrett Business Services, 148 Or App 496 , 941 P2d 1036 (1997). … See Inkley v.

Hoffman v. Bumble Bee Seafoods (No. 29147)

15 Or. App. 253 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 5, 1973

The hearing officer had denied the claim and .the Workmen’s Compensation Board had reversed, al-Jowing it. … This language was repeated by the circuit judge in his letter opinion which upheld the board. The '"hearing officer and ■ the* board wrote extensive .opinions, explaining their conclusions.

Turner v. Thompson

157 Or. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 1998

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the Board’s initial deferral was impermissible under our decision in Meadows v. … Jones v. Thompson, 156 Or App 226 , 968 P2d 380 (1998). Regarding his argument that the Board lacked authority to require him to undergo a psychological evaluation, we disagree.