Case law

James River Corp. v. Green

164 Or. App. 649 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 1999

We also agree with James River that our case law, specifically Nomeland v. City of Portland, 106 Or App 77 , 806 P2d 175 (1991), and Papen v. … Id. at 81 (citing Cascade Corporation v. Rose, 92 Or App 663 , 759 P2d 1127 (1988)).

Barrett Business Services v. Morrow

164 Or. App. 628 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 1999

At the outset, we note that in Multifoods Specialty Distribution v. … ORS 174.010; SAIF v. Drews, 318 Or 1, 6 , 860 P2d 254 (1993). Nonetheless, we conclude that the Board reached the correct result, based on the language of ORS 656.308(1) and the Supreme Court’s opinion in Drews .

Trojan Concrete v. Tallant

107 Or. App. 429 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 29, 1991

Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 150 , 795 P2d 531 (1990). SAIF had previously accepted the claim. … Clark v. Linn, 98 Or App 393 , 779 P2d 203 (1989).

Gier's Liquor & Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Ass'n of Unit Owners of Driftwood Shores Surfside Inn Condominium

124 Or. App. 365 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 3, 1993

The board is authorized to incur debts that may exceed $2,000 if more than 50 percent of the voting owners concur. The board may mortgage the assets of defendant in doing so. … Com. et al. v. Kendrick et al., 227 Or 608 , 363 P2d *372 1078 (1961); Mt. Shadow Homes v. Gray, 61 Or App 230, 233 , 656 P2d 383 , rev den 295 Or 31 (1983). There is evidence here that the award was reasonable.

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Smith

117 Or. App. 224 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 1992

Barr v. EBI Companies, 88 Or App 132, 134 , 744 P2d 582 (1987). However, it argues that claimant did not file a claim on which the Board could find that there was a de facto denial. … Employer’s principal complaint is that the Board’s holding is not supported by substantial evidence. In particular, employer challenges the Board’s reliance on the opinion of Dr.

Long v. Argonaut Insurance

169 Or. App. 625 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 13, 2000

On review, claimant argues that, under our decision in SAIF v. … Employer also argues that our reading of the Division’s rules conflicts with Freres Lumber Co. v. Jegglie, 106 Or App 27 , 806 P2d 164 (1991).

Barnett v. Redmond School District 2J

209 Or. App. 724 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 13, 2006

Nixon v. Cascade Health Services, Inc., 205 Or App 232, 234 , 134 P3d 1027 (2006). … West v. Allied Signal, Inc., 200 Or App 182, 187 , 113 P3d 983 (2005). See also Bachmeier v. Tuttle, 195 Or App 83, 85 , 96 P3d 871 (2004). The procedural history of this dispute is largely undisputed.

State v. Coffey

94 Or. App. 94 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 23, 1988

In State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 445 , 687 P2d 751 (1984), the court held that polygraph test results are inadmissible in any proceeding subject to the rules of evidence under the Oregon Evidence Code. … The court in State v. Lyon, supra, 304 Or at 233, 234 , expanded its holding in Brown to prohibit the use of polygraph evidence even where admissibility has been stipulated by the parties.

Smith v. Employment Division

34 Or. App. 623 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 30, 1978

On the first appeal, Smith v. … We conclude, as did the Board, that claimant terminated her employment voluntarily and without good cause. Affirmed.

Murphy v. State Accident Insurance Fund

13 Or. App. 105 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 26, 1973

The Board and the circuit court affirmed. … See Stroh v. State Accident Ins.

Grace v. SAIF Corp.

76 Or. App. 511 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 1985

SAIF moved to dismiss this review on the ground that the Board’s decision was not a final order. That would be true if the Board had only made a determination as to whether claimant was medically stationary. See Dean v. … Boise Cascade, 298 Or 452 , 693 P2d 632 (1984), Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser, 288 Or 51 , 602 P2d 268 (1979), *516 and Weller v.

State v. Mancuso

25 Or. App. 785 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 21, 1976

ORS 131.515(2), which is a codification of the concept in State v. … explained its practical effect in State v.

Coquille School District 8 v. Castillo

212 Or. App. 596 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 16, 2007

In Norden v. … Gaynor v. Board of Parole, 165 Or App 609, 612 , 996 P2d 1020 (2000) (citing SAIF v. Shipley, 326 Or 557, 561 , 955 P2d 244 (1998), and Campbell v.

Vijan v. Vijan

105 Or. App. 294 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 1991

The Board affirmed and assessed an additional attorney fee under ORS 656.307(5). … Howard v. Willamete Poultry, 101 Or App 584 , 792 P2d 447 (1990); Dilworth v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 95 Or App 85, 91 , 767 P2d 484 , rev den 307 Or 658 (1989).

Mayes v. State Compensation Department

1 Or. App. 234 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 21, 1969

The Supreme Court has had occasion to consider this problem in four recent cases: Clayton v. Compensation Dept., 253 Or 397 , 454 P2d 628 (1969); Coday v. … Grandell v. Roseburg Lbr. Co., supra. The judgment is affirmed. ① We note the decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board was by a vote of 2 to 1.

Miller v. Grants Pass Irrigation District

64 Or. App. 40 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 1983

The only question is whether the Board’s failure to exercise that authority is nonfeasance for which there is immunity as a matter of law. See Stevenson v. State of Oregon, 290 Or 3 , 619 P2d 247 (1980). … See Stevenson v. State of Oregon, supra, 290 Or at 14 . It is more akin to a decision whether or how to provide for safety on an existing roadway.

State v. Allen

312 Or. App. 584 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 30, 2021

See State v. … State v.

Hewes v. State Accident Insurance Fund

36 Or. App. 91 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 1978

We affirm the Workers’ Compensation Board’s denial of the claim for aggravation. See Bowman v. Oregon Transfer Company, 33 Or App 241 , 576 P2d 27 (1978). … However, Williams v.

Fisher v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.

12 Or. App. 417 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 12, 1973

On the issue of causation, we agree with the hearing officer and the Board that claimant did not carry his burden. The general rule is that causal connection must be shown by expert medical testimony. Cf. Lemons v. … Wilson v. State Ind. Acc. Comm., 189 Or 114 , 219 P2d 138 (1950); Lindeman v. State Indus. Acc. Comm., 183 Or 245 , 192 P2d 732 (1948).

Carlson v. Valley Mechanical

115 Or. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 1992

The Board adopted the referee’s order. … As we explained in SAIF v.