Case law

Sobel v. Board of Pharmacy

130 Or. App. 374 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 1994

In Bernard v. … In Mutual of Enumclaw v.

Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc. v. Brown

73 Or. App. 90 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 3, 1985

Fir Lumber Company v. Temple Dist. Co., 70 Or App 192, 198 , 688 P2d 1378 (1984). Defendants also assign as error that the court denied their motion for a directed verdict. … Remington v. Landolt, 273 Or 297, 302 , 541 P2d 472 (1975). Defendants did not otherwise present the constitutional issue to the court.

Solomon v. State Land Board

25 Or. App. 311 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 1976

Def. v. Air Poll. … of Environmental Quality, the administrative of ficer of the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission, the Director of Agriculture, the State Parks Superintendent, the State Marine Director, the Water Policy Review Board

Thompson v. Board of Parole

114 Or. App. 222 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 1992

PER CURIAM In Thompson v. Board of Parole, 111 Or App 444 , 823 P2d 1051 (1992), we dismissed the petition for judicial review, relying on Denham v. … Board of Parole, 106 Or App 234 , 806 P2d 1167 (1991), because defendant sought review of the order setting his parole release date, instead of the order on administrative review. Under Owens v.

Arnold v. Board of Accountancy

49 Or. App. 261 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 17, 1980

Megdal v. Board of Dental Examiners, supra, 288 Or at 304-305 . … Megdal v. Board of Dental Examiners, supra, 288 Or at 313-314 .

Taylor v. Board of Parole

200 Or. App. 515 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2005

Board of Parole, 313 Or. 234, 239 , 833 P.2d 1268 (1992)) (bracketed material in Eli ). And in Garcia v. … See generally First Commerce of America v.

Atkinson v. Board of Parole

319 Or. App. 673 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 2022

See Green v. Baldwin, 204 Or App 351, 129 P3d 734 (2006) (involving the board’s 1985 rules); Dunmire v. … Atkinson v. Board of Parole, A171896. 6 Cf. Haskins v.

Lent v. Employment Relations Board

63 Or. App. 400 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 8, 1983

See Bay River v. Envir. Quality Comm., 26 Or App 717 , 554 P2d 620 , rev den 276 Or 555 (1976). Although exhaustion of remedies has been referred to in the case law as a “jurisdictional” matter, see Bay River v. Envir. … There is a dictum in Marbet v. Portland Gen.

Hill v. Board of Parole

85 Or. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 22, 1987

The Board set the history/risk assessment at eight and offense severity ratings for both crimes at three. … He argues that the Board could either override or sustain only a single unified minimum. We agree. We remand to the Board to reset petitioner’s release date pursuant to its rules. See ORS 183.482(8)(a).

Wolff v. Board of Psychologist Examiners

284 Or. App. 792 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 19, 2017

Lucke v. DPSST, 247 Or App 630, 633 , 270 P3d 251 (2012). … Topaz v.

Miller v. Board of Parole

111 Or. App. 662 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 26, 1992

Rondeau v. Board of Parole

232 Or. App. 488 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 2009

See Baty v. … We further agree with the board that, in light of petitioner’s indeterminate lifetime term of PPS — which the trial court was authorized to impose, see Jones v.

Brown v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

51 Or. App. 389 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 30, 1981

The statutory de novo review power of the Board is expressly limited to the record made at the hearing and transmitted by the referee. Inkley v. Forest Fiber Products Co., 288 Or 337, 345 , 605 P2d 1175 (1980); Coday v. … SAIF, 49 Or App 1015, 1018 , 621 P2d 646 (1980); Holmes v. SAIF, 38 Or App 145 , 589 P2d 1151 (1979); Mansfield v. Caplener Bros. 3 Or App 448 , 474 P2d 785 (1970); McManus v. State Acc. Ins. Fund, supra.

Hamlin v. Public Employees Retirement Board

273 Or. App. 796 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 23, 2015

1 In the order on review, the Public Employees Retirement Board (PERB) answered those questions no. We agree with PERB and affirm. … Petitioner relies on Rose v. Board of Trustees, 215 Or App 138 , 168 P3d 1204 (2007), in support of her argument that PERS lacked authority to implement the dissolution judgment. That case is inapposite.

Akles v. Board of Parole

318 Or. App. 405 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 16, 2022

Relying on our decisions in Dam v. Board of Parole, 258 Or App 39, 309 P3d 161 (2013), and Nevins v. … That is not the 408 Akles v. Board of Parole case here. Accordingly, as we did in those cases, we reverse and remand for reconsideration.

Brown v. Miller

336 Or. App. 460 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 27, 2024

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STEPHEN LEE BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. … Stelz v. Cain, 325 Or App 560, 562, 529 P3d 284 (2023). Here, when plaintiff filed his habeas petition, he also filed a motion for appointment of counsel.

Rise v. Board of Parole

117 Or. App. 265 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 1992

Petitioner also contends that the Board was biased against him due to his service as an Inmate Legal Assistant. … See Howard v. State Board of Parole, 105 Or App 288, 292 , 804 P2d 509 , rev den 311 Or 432 (1991). He has also failed to prove his bias claim.

Biggerstaff v. Board of County Commissioners

240 Or. App. 46 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

More recently, in Kleikamp v. Board of County Commissioners, 240 Or App 57, 65-66 , 246 P3d 56 (2010), we reiterated the fundamental underpinnings of our directive in Friends of Yamhill County . … See Fox v.

Garcia v. Board of Parole

109 Or. App. 321 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 23, 1991

After the Board issued its order, petitioner timely requested administrative review. However, before the Board ruled on his request, petitioner filed his petition for review in this court. … Betsch v. Board of Parole, 109 Or App 155 , 817 P2d 1356 (1991); Taylor v. Board of Parole, 108 Or App 633 , 816 P2d 714 (1991).

Pounds v. Board of Trustees

89 Or. App. 552 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 10, 1988

The Board argues that the court erred in holding that it improperly construed the charter provisions. It contends, citing Springfield Education Assn. v. … However, the Board’s reliance on Springfield is misplaced. Springfield is not relevant to the scope of judicial review of a local government’s interpretation of its own legislation. In West Hills & Island Neighbors v.