Case law

Carlson v. Georgia Pacific Corp.

30 Or. App. 625 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 17, 1977

In this worker’s compensation case the Evaluation Division of the Workers’ Compensation Board, referee and Board on review all awarded claimant 40.5 degrees for 30 percent loss of use of his right foot. … As we noted in Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 4 Or App 178 ,193, 471 P2d 831 , 476 P2d 931 (1970), Sup Ct review denied (1971), and Romero v.

Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Duwe

75 Or. App. 493 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 2, 1985

See also Lemmons v. Zurich Insurance Company, 403 F2d 512 (5th Cir 1968). In Hadrick v. … In contrast to Bruce v.

Kidney Ass'n of Oregon, Inc. v. Ferguson

97 Or. App. 120 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 1989

See Moses v. McGarvey, 614 P2d 1363 (Alaska 1980); Goldstein v. Lees, 46 Cal App 3d 614, 120 Cal Rptr 253 (1975); King v. King, 52 Ill App 3d 749, 367 NE2d 1358 (1977); Moffett Bros. Partnership Estate v. … The record does not show that Marx had authority to act on behalf of the board, however. Montgomery was one of several sellers. For ease of reference we refer to them collectively as Montgomery. In Cloud v. U.S.

State v. Munson

83 Or. App. 447 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 28, 1987

He relies on State v. Brown, 262 Or 442, 457-58 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972). However, Brown expressly excluded multiple sentences from its scope. Further, in State v. … See Brown v. Ohio, 432 US 161 , 97 S Ct 2221 , 53 L Ed 2d 187 (1977). Thus, under both Oregon and federal law, the issue is whether the trial court exceeded its statutory authority in imposing consecutive sentences.

Kuralt v. SAIF Corp. (In re Kuralt)

290 Or. App. 479 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 28, 2018

On employer's appeal, the board reversed the ALJ, relying on our opinion in Riddel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 8 Or. App. 438 , 494 P.2d 901 (1972). … In Sekermestrovich v.

Wood v. Dunn

109 Or. App. 204 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 9, 1991

We do not understand the Board’s rationale. Certainly, Herwood needed notice of SAIF’s acceptance of the claim before it could be expected to request a hearing on that issue. In any event, under our holdings in Blain v. … We held in Kistner v.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Brewer

62 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 2, 1983

This is a successive-injury case and is governed by the “last injury” rule 3 adopted in Smith v. Ed’s Pancake House, 27 Or App 361, 364-65 , 556 P2d 158 (1976): *128 “In Outright v. Amer. … We disagree with the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s “injury” at Viking contributed independently to her final condition. The Board apparently relied on Dr.

Curry Educational Service District v. Bengtson

175 Or. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 5, 2001

See Greenbriar Ag Management v. … See also Freightliner Corp. v.

Marshall v. Korpa

118 Or. App. 144 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 10, 1993

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed and, on review, we reversed and remanded for reconsideration. Marshall v. Bob Kimmel Trucking, 109 Or App 101 , 817 P2d 1346 (1991). … See Bakker v.

Greenwade v. State Accident Insurance Fund

41 Or. App. 697 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 27, 1979

The referee and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim on the basis of the prior settlement. Claimant appeals. … He argues that the order is defective and must be set aside, citing Petty v. SAIF, 6 Or App 636 , 488 P2d 1201 , rev den (1971).

Farrimond v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

103 Or. App. 563 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 10, 1990

A person aggrieved by a practice prohibited by that provision has the remedies provided by ORS 659.121(1) and (2). 3 In *567 1978, the Supreme Court held in Brown v. … In Palmer v.

Roseburg Forest Products v. Gibson

115 Or. App. 127 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 9, 1992

The Board held that claimant had not withdrawn from the work force, relying on its decision in Ellis N. Phillips, 43 Van Natta 231 (1991). On review, we reversed that decision. Roseburg Forest Products v. … In Phillips , we recited the relevant inquiry from Dawkins v. Pacific Motor Trucking, 308 Or 254 , 778 P2d 497 (1989): “A claimant is deemed to be in the work force if: “a.

Leonard v. Jackson

6 Or. App. 613 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 21, 1971

the highway,” and in failing to “[rjemove the loose rocks above the highway.” ① *615 The defendants demurred to the complaint upon the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, citing as authority Smith v. … This allegation was stricken on motion of defendants. ② In Smith v.

Beck v. Croft

73 Or. App. 673 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 1985

Defendant brought up plaintiffs actions at the May OSFA board meeting; the board then invited plaintiff to attend its June meeting. … Defendant asserts that, under Welch v.

State v. Amini

175 Or. App. 370 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 18, 2001

In Medina v. … In Leland v.

Norstadt v. Murphy Plywood/Liberty Northwest Insurance

148 Or. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 18, 1997

Timm v. Maley, 125 Or App 396, *488 400-01 , 865 P2d 1315 (1993). … Citing Volk v.

Stratis v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

96 Or. App. 706 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 24, 1989

Claimant argues that the issue is the scope of employer’s 1981 acceptance and that, under Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or 788 , 670 P2d 1027 (1983), and Georgia-Pacific v. … See ORS 656.273(1). 1 There is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that it did not. The Board did not err when it affirmed the referee’s denial of the aggravation claim.

K v. Health Div., Dept. of Human Resources

26 Or. App. 311 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 2, 1976

In Wulff v. … Timber/Bernard v.

Multnomah County Corrections Deputy Ass'n v. Multnomah County

257 Or. App. 713 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 31, 2013

See also Assn. of Oregon Corrections Emp. v. … .”); Mastriano v.

State v. Dummitt

115 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 14, 1992

It argues, however, that no rule precludes supervision by both the sentencing court and the Board. … See State v. Enos, 114 Or App 208 , 836 P2d 1347 (1992); State v. Markham, 114 Or App 5 , 836 P2d 1348 (1992). The judgment requires that defendant serve 90 days in jail. The state concedes that that was error.