Case law

Thrasher v. Reynolds Metals

133 Or. App. 13 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 15, 1995

Employer says that this case is just like Cooney v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 125 Or App 536 , 865 P2d 499 (1993). In that case, the claimant was denied additional compensation for chondromalacia. … the Board should have remanded to the Director to adopt an appropriate rule.

SAIF Corp. v. Beswick

104 Or. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 28, 1990

Employer contends that the case should be remanded, because the Board failed to make a finding about whether claimant was willing to seek employment. … See also SAIF v. Orr, 101 Or App 612 , 792 P2d 454 (1990). Here, the Board found that any efforts by claimant to seek employment would be futile but did not address whether she was willing to seek work.

Rose City Van & Storage v. McGuire

107 Or. App. 404 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 29, 1991

Relying on Boise Cascade Corp. v. … Bracke v. Baza’r, Inc., 293 Or 239, 248 , 646 P2d 1330 (1982).

Iwasaki v. Iwasaki Bros., Inc.

58 Or. App. 543 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 18, 1982

Baker v. … Arthur was aware that he had the ability to block the action of the board by voting against it creating a tie, but instead abstained. This situation is similar to that in Baker v. Commercial Body Builders, supra.

Turudic v. Stephens

176 Or. App. 175 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 2001

See Aldridge v. … See Original CCRs, Art V, sec 2 (Board shall regulate use of land “in such a manner as to preserve and enhance lot values and farming and to maintain a harmonious relationship among structures and the natural vegetation and

Cascade Steel Rolling Mills v. Madril

57 Or. App. 398 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 1982

In Hannan v. … In Green v. State Ind. Acc.

State v. Mink

30 Or. App. 339 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 8, 1977

See generally Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. CL, 29 Or App 917 , 566 P2d 522 (1977); State v. Carpenter, 29 Or App 879 , 565 P2d 768 (1977). … ORS 484.375, 484.390; Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., supra. Thus, unlike violations which "are tried in exactly or substantially the same way as felonies and misdemeanors,” State v.

Darling v. Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc.

188 Or. App. 190 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 12, 2003

See Ring v. … See, e.g., Robinson v.

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Little

107 Or. App. 316 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 1991

Eastman v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 79 Or App 610 , 719 P2d 1310 (1986). … Employer also asserts that, because claimant did not personally appear at the hearing, the Board erred when it refused to dismiss the request for hearing. Employer is wrong. See Williams v.

Persad v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Inc.

106 Or. App. 615 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 1991

He did and spoke with another nurse, Brown. … Plaintiff relies on Reynoldson v. Jackson, 275 Or 641 , 552 P2d 236 (1976), and State v. Apperson, 85 Or App 429 , 736 P2d 1026 (1987).

Putman v. Employment Division

36 Or. App. 267 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 18, 1978

Petitioner appeals from a determination of the Employment Appeals Board (Board) denying him unemployment compensation on the grounds that he "voluntarily left work without good cause,” ORS 657.176(2)(c). … Morgan, 17 Or App 428 , 522 P2d 1204 (1974), and Garrelts v. Employment Division, 21 Or App 437 , 535 P2d 115 (1975), he was acting as a reasonably prudent person when he quit.

Blivens v. Employment Division

55 Or. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 1982

In Swezey v. … We remanded the matter because, when Swezey was decided by the Board, the Division was under the false impression that this issue had been decided by the Supreme Court in McPherson v.

Sinsel v. Henderson

62 Or. App. 150 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 2, 1983

At trial, the parties stipulated to the amount, value and logging costs of the timber taken by defendants: (a) Fir - 3,100 board feet net at $190 per 1,000 board feet, $589. … (b) Spruce - 3,550 board feet net at $85 per 1,000 board feet, $301.75. (c) Hemlock - 2,510 board feet net at $85 per 1,000 board feet, $213.35.

Newport Seafood v. Shine

71 Or. App. 119 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 21, 1984

The Board reversed a referee’s decision that Intercontinental Motor Lines (IML) was claimant’s employer at the time of the injury. Responsibility is the sole issue. We affirm the Board. … In Multnomah County v.

State v. Rothman

69 Or. App. 614 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 5, 1984

See also Bush v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 295 Or 619 , 669 P2d 324 (1983) (similar result necessitated by Legislative Counsel’s error in renumbering code sections).” Affirmed. … “(e) A controlled substance in Schedule V, is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.”

Hamlin v. Roseburg Lumber Co.

30 Or. App. 615 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 17, 1977

The referee and the Board itself upheld the employer and found no permanent disability. … Essentially, then, this is a fact question, as the parties agree, and as such is governed by the principles *619 announced in Hammond v. Albina Engine & Mach., 21 Or App 452 , 534 P2d 1163 (1975).

State v. Serhienko

111 Or. App. 604 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 26, 1992

ORS 144.110 provides for a minimum term of up to one half the length of the sentence, and it may be overridden only by a vote of four of the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision members. … State v. Turner, 247 Or 301 , 429 P2d 565 (1967). Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

The New Portland Meadows v. Dieringer

157 Or. App. 619 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 1998

The New Portland Meadows (TNPM) moves for reconsideration of our opinion in The New Portland Meadows v. … Reynolds Metals v. Rogers, 157 Or App 147, 153 , 967 P2d 1251 (1998).

Mantle v. SAIF

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 4, 2024

“Generally speaking, under ORS 656.704, the board has review author- ity over matters concerning a claim, and the director has review authority over matters other than those concerning a claim.” Martin v. … See id. at 186 n 3 (noting that either the MRU, the board, or both may have authority to resolve the dispute); cf. Daugherty v.

McAdams v. Saif Corp.

66 Or. App. 415 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 11, 1984

Livesley Co. v. … The Board reversed. In Phil A. Livesley Co. v. Russ, supra, the claimant was walking down a crowded aisle from his work station to the *418 time-clock to punch out when he fell and broke his hip.