Case law

Newport Elks Club v. Hays

92 Or. App. 604 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 24, 1988

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board which reversed the referee’s decision upholding employer’s “backup denial.” … In Ebbtide Enterprises v.

State v. Haycraft

20 Or. App. 28 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 14, 1975

State v. Brown, supra, and ORS 131.515 ② prevent the defendant from being prosecuted twice for the same offense. … In State v.

Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Samel

199 Or. App. 540 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 2005

It draws no distinction between cases that the Board decides on the merits and those that are resolved on some other basis.” See also SAIF v. … The board’s award of attorney fees is not an increase in compensation. Dotson v. Bohemia, Inc., 80 Or App 233, *544 236 , 720 P2d 1345 , rev den, 302 Or 35 (1986); see also Farmers Ins. Group v.

Carlson v. Piper Aircraft Corp.

57 Or. App. 695 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 1982

In Lobel v. … Civil Aeronautics Board, Legislative Program, 86th Cong 2d Session, Item 5, p 14.

Colwell v. Washington County

79 Or. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 1986

In Petersen v. … We later held in Stewart v.

Thomas v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

73 Or. App. 128 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 1985

In the original judicial review, claimant focused on his contention that the Board erred in not remanding the case for the taking of additional evidence; he also contended that the Board erred in affirming the referee’s order … The Board appears to have agreed with that assessment of the record. The Supreme Court, in Barrett v.

Hannan v. Good Samaritan Hospital

4 Or. App. 178 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 1970

State v. … The hearing officer and board determinations were both made prior to the decision in Ryf v.

Liberty Northwest Insurance Corp. v. Damm

812 P.2d 854 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 1991

The Board affirmed the referee but, citing its opinion in Donna E. … Reversed and remanded for reconsideration in the light of Aetna Casualty Co. v. Aschbacher, 107 Or. App. 494 , 812 P.2d 844 (1991).

Duncan v. Law Enforcement Council

37 Or. App. 119 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 14, 1978

See, e.g., Smith v. Peet, 29 Or App 625 , 564 P2d 1083 , rev den (1977). However, an agency will not be given deference to embroider the rules another agency has established in accordance with statutes. Paul v. … See, e.g., Portland Fish Co. v. States Steamship Co., 510 F2d 628 (9th Cir 1974); State ex rel Kvaalen v. Graybill, 159 Mont 190 , 496 P2d 1127 (1972); Montoya v. Moore, 77 N M 326, 422 P2d 363 (1967).

State v. Barboe

253 Or. App. 367 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 7, 2012

State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). Further, even where those conditions are satisfied, we must still affirmatively exercise *375 our discretion to reach and correct the error. Ailes v. … Brown, 310 Or at 355 .

Long v. Industrial Indemnity Co.

20 Or. App. 24 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 14, 1975

see Hamilton v. … “The order of the Compensation Board * * * is affirmed. Affirmed.

State v. Phillips

234 Or. App. 676 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 14, 2010

State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). For the reasons stated below, we agree with the state. First, we conclude that defendant was represented by counsel at the hearing. … Brown, 310 Or at 355 .

Gronquist v. State Accident Insurance Fund

25 Or. App. 27 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 1976

The Board and circuit court affirmed on the merits. … Co. v. Anderson, 167 Or 686, 697 , 120 P2d 578 (1941). But this is not the end of the inquiry.

Wulf v. MacKey

135 Or. App. 655 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 26, 1995

Plaintiff invokes Noakes v. … The court denied that motion. 3 See, e.g., Schumacher v. Schumacher, 469 NW2d 793 (ND 1991); Crosby v. Beam, 47 Ohio St 3d 105, 548 NE2d 217 (1989).

State v. Hall

282 Or. App. 9 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 2, 2016

See ORAP 5.45(1) (authorizing review of unpreserved errors apparent on the record); State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355-56 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (articulating the standards for plain error review); Ailes v. … See, e.g., State v.

Iverson v. State Accident Insurance Fund

28 Or. App. 789 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 21, 1977

Beaudry v. Winchester Plywood Co., 255 Or 503 , 469 P2d 25 (1970); King v. Oregon Steel Mills, 25 Or App 685 , 550 P2d 747 (1976); Geenty v. … See generally O’Neal v. Sisters of Providence, 22 Or App 9 , 537 P2d 580 (1975). Uris v. Compensation Department, 247 Or 420 , 427 P2d 753 , 430 P2d 861 (1967); Barry v.

Marlette Homes, Inc. v. Employment Division

33 Or. App. 547 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 1978

The employer appeals from a decision of the Employment Appeals Board finding claimant eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. … Her behavior was a deliberate violation of standards of behavior which her employer had a right to expect of its employes, Erickson v.

MILLERSBURG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. Mullen

14 Or. App. 614 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 28, 1973

In McManus v. … It is suggested by petitioners that it is judicial in nature, like that of local govern *622 ment boards sitting in individual zoning, matters. In Fasano v. Washington Co.

State v. Fink

79 Or. App. 590 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 4, 1986

Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984), the court held that polygraph evidence is not admissible in any proceeding governed by the Oregon Evidence Code without a stipulation to admit it. Cf. State v. … Brown does not control this case, because the provisions of the Evidence Code do not apply to the issuance of search warrants. OEC 101 (4) (f).

Haugen v. Beautique a Go-Go

18 Or. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 22, 1974

In Patitucci v. … Kehoe v. Ind. Accident Com., 214 Or 629 , 332 P2d 91 (1958); Keefer v. State Ind. Acc. Commission, 171 Or. 405 , 135 P2d 806 (1943).’ Watson v.