Case law

Hoffman v. City of Portland

57 Or. App. 688 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 1982

LUBA based its ruling on our decision in Gordon v. … That contention was found to be unpersuasive by the Supreme Court in its decision on review in Gordon v. City of Beaverton, 292 Or 228 , 231 n 2, 637 P2d 125 (1981). See Williams v. Cody, supra.

Oliver v. Employment Division

40 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 1979

Anderson v. … Board of Medical Examiners v. Mintz, 233 Or 441, 447 , 378 P2d 945 (1963).

McGill v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

81 Or. App. 210 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 1986

The Supreme Court of Texas in Saunders v. Texas Employers’ Ins. … Saunders v. Texas Employers’ Ins.

US Bancorp v. Mulrooney

198 Or. App. 93 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 2, 2005

On review, the board reversed. … ORS 656.298; ORS 183.482(7), (8); Office Depot, Inc. v.

Teamsters Local 670 v. United Foods, Inc.

96 Or. App. 557 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 1989

In Hanna Mining Co. v. … See also Beasley v. Food Fair of North Carolina, Inc., 416 US 653 , 94 S Ct 2023 , 40 L Ed 2d 2023 (1974).

Edge v. Jeld-Wen

52 Or. App. 725 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 15, 1981

Mueller v. SAIF, 33 Or App 31, 35 , 575 P2d 673 (1978). In Briggs v. … As we have noted before, the Board is generally presumed to have expertise in determining the extent of disability. See, e.g., Russell v.

State v. Brooks

285 Or. App. 54 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 2017

See State v. … (Quoting Brown, 310 Or at 355 .) We agree with the state.

State Farm Insurance v. Lyda

148 Or. App. 424 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 1997

We review to determine if the Board’s interpretation of an inexact term is consistent with the statute, England v. Thunderbird, 315 Or 633, 638 , 848 P2d 100 (1993), and affirm. The facts are not in dispute. … Kessler v. Board of Parole, 145 Or App 584, 590 , 931 P2d 801 (1997). We therefore turn to insurer’s argument that former OAR 436-60-025(5)(j) is inconsistent with our holding in Hadley .

Donald M. Drake Co. v. Lundmark

63 Or. App. 261 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 1983

The Board disagreed. It found that “* * * under the standards of James v. SAIF, 290 Or 343, 348 (1980), claimant has an occupational disease. … (Emphasis is the Board’s.) In James v. SAIF, 290 Or 343 , 624 P2d 565 (1980), the Supreme Court approved the distinction made between “injury” and “disease” in O’Neal v.

Clemons v. Roseburg Lumber Co.

34 Or. App. 135 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 8, 1978

Finley v. SAIF, 34 Or App 129 , 578 P2d 432 (1978); Suell v. SAIF, 22 Or App 201 , 538 P2d 84 (1975). … Accordingly, *141 this case is remanded to the Board for recalculation of claimant’s permanent disability award in a manner consistent with this opinion. Ryf v.

Reynolds School District v. Oregon School Employees Ass'n

58 Or. App. 609 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 1982

Citing Port of Portland v. Municipal Emp. … In Klamath Co. v. Laborers Inter.

State v. Boundy

115 Or. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 21, 1992

State v. Brown, 301 Or 268 , 721 P2d 1357 (1986), and State v. … Moreover, the facts in State v. Brown, supra, and State v. Bennett, supra, are distinguishable from this case. In Brown , one person was in the car, and the police had probable cause to search his purse. 301 Or at 279.

Goodman-Herron v. SAIF Corp.

151 Or. App. 602 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 17, 1997

Livesly Co. v. Russ, 296 Or 25 , 672 P2d 337 (1983)] and [Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Hayes, 325 Or 592 , 943 P2d 197 (1997).]” Redman, 326 Or at 36 . … We reverse the Board’s order and remand to the Board for reconsideration in the light of Redman.

E. W. Eldridge, Inc. v. Becker

73 Or. App. 631 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 1985

The Board affirmed. … See EBI Companies v.

State v. Daniel

115 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 9, 1992

ORAP 5.45(2); see State v. Brown, 310 Or 347 , 800 P2d 259 (1990).

Suchi v. SAIF Corp.

238 Or. App. 48 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 20, 2010

The Workers’ Compensation Board agreed. … State v.

McCleery v. State

132 Or. App. 14 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 21, 1994

Fitzgerald v. Oregon Board of Optometry, 75 Or App 390, 392 , 760 P2d 586 (1985). … See Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 149 , 881 P2d 119 (1994); Amazon Coop. Tenants v. Bd. High Ed., 15 Or App 418, 420 , 516 P2d 89 , rev den (1974).

Bogle v. Department of General Services

136 Or. App. 351 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 10, 1955

We affirm the Board, but write to address claimant’s contention that the Board erroneously discounted the opinion of his treating physician. … In Elwood v.

State Ex Rel. Haas v. Club Recreation & Pleasure

41 Or. App. 557 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 20, 1979

ORS 465.150. 2 *561 I Citing Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. … Webster v. Daugherty, supra; Hensley v.

Weller v. Union Carbide Corp.

35 Or. App. 355 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 1978

The referee and Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that it was not. The circuit court ruled that it was. We agree with the referee and Board, and therefore reverse the circuit court. … Our analysis here in turn requires analysis of Hamilton v. SAIF, 11 Or App 344 , 501 P2d 1007 (1972), rev den (1973).