Case law

Publishers Paper Co. v. Benton County

63 Or. App. 632 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 1983

The commission shall allow the parties an opportunity to present oral argument to the commission unless the board recommends that oral argument not be allowed and the commission concurs with the board’s recommendation. … The commission shall issue its determination on the recommendation of the board and return the determination to the board for inclusion in the board’s order under section 5 of this 1979 Act, within such time as is necessary

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.

RLC Industries v. Sun Studs, Inc.

172 Or. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 31, 2001

James River Corp. v. … The Board in Farmers Ins.

Driver v. Rod & Reel Restaurant

125 Or. App. 661 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 5, 1994

Cook v. Workers’ Compensation Department, 306 Or 134, 138 , 758 P2d 854 (1988). The question is whether physical therapy is one of the “healing arts.” … The Board can address that ambiguity on remand. 4 Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

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.”

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.

Wittmeyer v. Children's Services Division

16 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1973

The Board decided against her on the merits. We affirm the Board on procedural grounds. The performance evaluation in question was furnished to petitioner on April 2,1972. … If the employe and his supervisor cannot reach agreement as to the solution of the problem, he may present his problem in writing as a ■ grievance to the appropriate level of this pro- . cedure. *127 * * * # V’ Collective

Knupp v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

79 Or. App. 273 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 14, 1986

The scope of review of an order was considered by this court in Mansfield v. Caplener Bros., 3 Or App 448 , 474 P2d 785 (1970). … This case does not have any bearing on our consideration of evidence improperly excluded by the referee or Board. Relying on Stone v.

Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Page

73 Or. App. 136 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 1985

Both the referee and the Board concluded that claimant’s psychiatric condition was compensably related to his physical injuries. … See Partridge v. SAIF, 57 Or App 163, 167 , 643 P2d 1358 , rev den 293 Or 394 (1982). We conclude that claimant sustained his burden.

STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT v. Clatsop County

244 Or. App. 27 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 29, 2011

For the reasons set forth in DLCD v. Clatsop County (A144073), 244 Or. … Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 237 Or.App. 149, 152 , 238 P.3d 1016 (2010), rev. allowed, 349 Or. 602 , 249 P.3d 123 (2011).

Thomas v. Cascade Union High School District No. 5

80 Or. App. 736 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 20, 1986

Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19 (Ross I), 294 Or 357 , 657 P2d 188 (1982). … Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19 (Ross II), 300 Or 507, 518 , 716 P2d 724 (1986).

Rasmussen v. SAIF Corp.

182 Or. App. 642 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 17, 2002

PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (first step in interpreting a statute is to examine the plain meaning of the text and context). … See Sweeney v. SMC Corp., 178 Or App 576, 588 , 37 P3d 244 (2002) (meaning to be ascribed to statutory terms must be plausible in the context of the overall policy of the statutory scheme).

SAIF Corp. v. Bales

107 Or. App. 198 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 1991

Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist., 290 Or 217 , 621 P2d 547 (1980). … See, e.g., Johnson v. City of Roseburg, 86 Or App 344 , 739 P2d 602 (1982).

Oregon Ass'n of Classified Employees v. Salem-Keizer School District 24J

95 Or. App. 28 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 1989

Assn. v. … District relies on School District No. 17 v.

Robbins v. Executive Department

31 Or. App. 769 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 21, 1977

Petitioner appeals from a decision of the Employment Relations Board (Board) upholding his dismissal for insubordination. … Grisby v. Employment Div., 24 Or App 499, 501-02 , 546 P2d 788 (1976).

Pebb v. Ohsu

205 Or. App. 64 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 2006

App. 64 STATE of Oregon, by and through the PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' BENEFIT BOARD, Plaintiff, v. … In Miller v. C.C.

SAIF Corp. v. Abbott

103 Or. App. 49 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 8, 1990

The Board affirmed. Petitioners argue that the Board erred in setting aside SAIF’s denial. … In Georgia-Pacific v.

Florence v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

55 Or. App. 467 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 6, 1982

The Workers’ Compensation Board, citing Weller v. … See Eber v. Royal Globe, 54 Or App 940 , 636 P2d 1007 (1981). The order of the Board is reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the referee’s opinion.

Stovall v. Sally Salmon Seafood

84 Or. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 8, 1987

The Board properly assigned responsibility to Hallmark for the cumulative effect of the exposures at the two employments. *615 Bracke v. Baza’r, 293 Or 239 , 646 P2d 1330 (1982). … She prevailed finally before the Board on her claim against Hallmark and, for that reason, is entitled to attorney fees under ORS 656.386(1), payable by Hallmark. Petshow v. Farm Bureau Ins.

Sullivan v. Banister Pipeline American

91 Or. App. 493 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 15, 1988

In Sullivan v. … The Board reversed the referee and held that claimant had become medically stationary on March 31, 1981. We affirmed that determination. Sullivan v. Argonaut Ins. Co., supra.