Case law

State v. Evans

115 Or. App. 392 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 1992

The state concedes that the trial court erred in failing to apply the guidelines, see State v. Spinney, 109 Or App 573 , 820 P2d 854 (1991); see also State v. … ORAP 5.45(2); State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). We accept the state’s concession that the sentencing was in error. Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

Holdaway v. Employment Division

26 Or. App. 623 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 1976

Claimant appeals from the decision of the Employment Appeals Board (Board) which affirmed the decision of the referee that claimant voluntarily quit his job without good cause and was therefore not entitled to benefits. … We likewise find substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that the incident discussed above involving the other driver was not sufficient reason to quit. *626 In Brotherton v.

State v. McGrew

46 Or. App. 123 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 1980

Dept. v. Brown, 19 Or App 427 , 528 P2d 569 (1974), rev den, cert den 421 US 1003 (1975), the waiver of the privilege is co-extensive with the subject matter of the testimony elicited. See State v. … See, e. g., Nielsen v. Brown, 232 Or 426 , 374 P2d 896 (1962); Brink et ux v. Multnomah County, 224 Or 507 , 356 P2d 536 (1960); City & County of S. F. v.

State Ex Rel. Osborne v. Cook

185 Or. App. 317 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 11, 2002

See Pham v. … In Shelby v.

Thomas v. SAIF Corp.

64 Or. App. 193 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 10, 1983

Claimant appeals an order on review of the Workers’ Compensation Board, which reversed the opinion and order of the referee, holding that the referee and the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider claimant’s claim. … SAIF argues the Board should be affirmed, relying on Syphers v.

State v. Painter

63 Or. App. 385 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 8, 1983

See, e.g., Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 , 99 S Ct 2637 , 61 L Ed 2d 357 (1979). In this case, the officer approached defendant when they met in the alley. … Defendant cites Brown v. Texas, supra, and contends that the facts of that case, leading to the holding that the stop was unlawful under Terry , are indistinguishable from the facts here.

Bono v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

66 Or. App. 138 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 14, 1983

In Likens v. … SAIF also relies on Candee v.

Stroh v. State Accident Insurance Fund

6 Or. App. 628 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 21, 1971

This judicial history makes Place v. Friesen Lumber Co., 2 Or App 6, 463 P2d 596 (1970), rev’d 258 Or 98 , 481 P2d 617 (1971), inapplicable to the present circumstances. … This result with regard to ORS 656.298 (1) was based on the earlier Supreme Court decision in Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Taylor, 227 Or 376 , 362 P2d 364 (1961).

Davis v. Wasco Intermediate Education District

36 Or. App. 3 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 1978

The Board ruled to the contrary. We reverse. … The first relies upon District Court v. Multnomah County, 21 Or App 161 , 534 P2d 207 (1975).

SAIF Corp. v. Valencia

140 Or. App. 14 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 27, 1996

However, as we concluded in SAIF v. St. … Under our decision in SAIF v. Cline, 135 Or App 155 , 897 P2d 1172 , rev den 321 Or 560 (1995), SAIF is right.

Oregon State Employes Ass'n v. Deschutes County

40 Or. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 21, 1979

Klamath Co. v. Laborers Inter. Union, supra at 288-89. … ” Klamath Co. v. Laborers Inter. Union, supra at 287, quoting Winters et al v. Grimes et al, 124 Or 214, 216-17 , 264 P 359 (1928).

Krugen v. BEALL PIPE AND TANK CORPORATION

19 Or. App. 922 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 23, 1974

By Determination Order of November 6, 1970, the Closing & Evaluation Division of the Workmen’s Compensation Board found him to be permanently totally disabled. … “The employer then pointed to the lack of such efforts and argued, relying on Deaton v.

Riverbend Landfill Co. v. Yamhill County

314 Or. App. 79 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 18, 2021

(Riverbend) sought approval from the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners (county) to expand its solid waste landfill. … Stop the Dump Coalition v. Yamhill County, 364 Or 432, 434, 435 P3d 698 (2019) (SDC II).

State v. Nobles

306 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 19, 2020

State v. Ambill, 282 Or App 821, 823, 385 P3d 1110 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 524 (2017). … Zelinka, 130 Or App 464, 882 P2d 624 (1994), rev den, 320 Or 508 (1995); State v. Hostetter, 125 Or App 491, 865 P2d 485 (1993), rev den, 318 Or 583 (1994); State v.

Stone v. Witt

331 Or. App. 722 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 2024

Johnson, 302 Or at 388; Payless Drug Stores v. Brown, 300 Or 243, 246, 708 P2d 1143 (1985) (similar statement). 730 Stone v. … Under Zavalas, “professionals are not entitled to the benefit of an across-the-board ‘no duty’ rule merely because they are not in privity with those whom their negligent con- duct affects.” Delaney v.

Khosroabadi v. North Clackamas Parks and Rec. Dist.

347 Or. App. 465 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 2026

See West Linn Corporate Park v. … See Rogue Valley Sewer Services v.

DeJonge v. Mutual of Enumclaw

104 Or. App. 296 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 7, 1990

Payless Drug Stores v. Brown, 300 Or 243 , 708 P2d 1143 (1985); Stromme v. Nasburg and Co., 80 Or App 26 , 721 P2d 847 , rev den 302 Or 35 (1986). … See Payless Drug Stores v. Brown, supra; Stromme v. Nasburg and Co., supra.

State v. Henry

116 Or. App. 138 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 1992

The State Board of Pharmacy is authorized to change or add to that list. ORS 475.035. In State v. … In OAR 855-80-022, the Board enumerated methamphetamine as one of the controlled substances in Schedule II.

Crowley v. SAIF Corp.

115 Or. App. 460 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 14, 1992

Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order holding that his mental disorder is not compensable. … Claimant argues that the Board erred by analyzing his mental disorder as an occupational disease under former *463 ORS 656.802. 1 He is wrong. SAIF v. Hukari, 113 Or App 475 , 833 P2d 1307 (1992).

Anderson v. EBI Companies

79 Or. App. 345 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 14, 1986

J., Pro Tempore Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) affirming a referee’s opinion and order that held time-barred his request for hearing on a denial of benefits and, he argues, effectively … Poole v. SAIF, supra, 69 Or App at 508 . Affirmed.