Case law

Peacock v. Veneer Services

113 Or. App. 732 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 1, 1992

The Board committed no error. … The Board correctly upheld the rule.

State v. Gaylor

24 Or. App. 933 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 29, 1976

State v. Johnson, 10 Or App 353 , 499 P2d 348 , Sup Ct review denied (1972); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Brown, 19 Or App 427 , 528 P2d 569 (1974), Sup Ct review denied, cert denied 42 US 1003 (1975). See also, State v. … Brown, 9 Or App 137 , 495 P2d 304 , Sup Ct review denied (1972); State v. Keiper, 8 Or App 354 , 493 P2d 750 , Sup Ct review denied (1972).

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.

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.

Goodman v. Micka

151 Or. App. 27 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 1997

In Brown v. … In Brown, the court explained: “While the courts do have some discretion in granting declaratory relief, Cf.

Wilson v. Geddes

90 Or. App. 64 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 9, 1988

Anfora v. Liberty Communications, 88 Or App 30, 33 , 744 P2d 265 (1987). … Reversed as to award to claimant of attorney fees for responsibility hearing; otherwise affirmed. 1 Detailing the facts of this case would not aid the Board or the Bar. See Hoag v.

Barnett v. City of Salem

238 Or. App. 577 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 2010

Brown v. J. C. Penney Co., 297 Or 695, 705 , 688 P3d 811 (1984). Plaintiff, as appellant, must provide an appellate record sufficient for us to determine whether the trial court erred as she claims. … See Watts v.

Haskins v. Employment Department

156 Or. App. 285 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 1998

Claimant petitions for judicial review of a final order of the Employment Appeals Board (board) affirming the Employment Department’s (department) dismissal of her request for a hearing on the denial of her application for … Bronson v.

Newton v. Family Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

48 Or. App. 373 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 22, 1980

On July 21, 1975, at a special meeting of the board of directors, the board requested plaintiff’s resignation. He resigned the following day. … Shires v. Cobb, 271 Or 769 , 534 P2d 188 (1975) and Page v. Cameron, 33 Or App 441 , 576 P2d 837 (1978).

Wilson v. State Accident Insurance Fund

3 Or. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 2, 1970

Satterfield, supra; Coday v. Willamette Tug & Barge, 250 Or 39 , 440 P2d 224 (1968). … J., dissents. ① Satterfield v. State Comp. Dept., 1 Or App 524 , 465 P2d 239 (1970).

Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Yauger (In re Yauger)

295 Or. App. 330 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 12, 2018

That is a question of statutory construction that we address under the familiar principles set out in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries , 317 Or. 606 , 610-12, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993), and State v. … See Hopper v. SAIF , 265 Or. App. 465 , 469, 336 P.3d 530 (2014) (applying statute). Here, employer asserts, none of those circumstances has been established.

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.

Jordan v. Western Electric Co.

1 Or. App. 441 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 15, 1970

The' claim was filed under' the Workmen’s Compensation Law and denied by the hearing officer, the *443 Workmen’s Compensation Board, and the circuit court, successively. … In Sweet v.

Rosencrantz v. Insurance Service Company

2 Or. App. 225 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 1970

On appeal the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the circuit court affirmed the hearing officer. … This is called the rule of Matter of Marks v. Gray, 251 NY 90 , 167 NE 181 (1929), and has been mentioned, although not specifically passed upon, in Oregon. Munson v. State Ind. Acc.

CENTRAL PT. SCH. DIST. v. Emp. Relations Bd.

555 P.2d 1269 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 8, 1976

555 P.2d 1269 (1976) 27 Or.App. 285 CENTRAL POINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6, Petitioner, v. Employment Relations Board, and District 6 Education Association, Respondents. Court of Appeals of Oregon. … Assn. v. Sch. Dist., 24 Or. App. 751, 760 , 547 P.2d 647 ; 25 Or. App. 407 , 549 P.2d 1141 , Sup.Ct. review denied (1976).

State v. Stover

14 Or. App. 559 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 27, 1973

The separate felony and misdemeanor charges brought against defendant in this case were for the same offense under the three-part test of State v. *562 Brown, 262 Or 442, 448 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972). See, State v. … In State v.

Wilton v. Employment Division

26 Or. App. 549 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 23, 1976

The referee held that she did; the Employment Appeals Board held that she did not. The Employment Appeals Board exercises do novo review of the decision of the referee. Stevenson v. … Grigsby v. Employment Div., 24 Or App 499 , 546 P2d 788 (1976). The relevant findings of the Employment Appeals Board are supported by substantial evidence and we cannot disturb them.

State v. Parks

90 Or. App. 170 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 9, 1988

State v. Gordon, 43 Or App 511 , 603 P2d 1196 (1979), rev den 288 Or 571 (1980). … State v. Turner, 247 Or 301, 313 , 429 P2d 565 (1967); see also State v. Heath/ Nearing, 82 Or App 207 , 728 P2d 68 (1986). Here, the Board of Parole had discharged defendant from parole on his sentence.

Caddy v. SAIF Corp.

110 Or. App. 353 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 18, 1991

The Board held that the Caddys, through their agent Boger, had the right to control claimant’s work and that, therefore, they were his employer. … Fincham v. Wendt, 59 Or App 416, 422 , 651 P2d 159 , rev den 294 Or 149 (1982).

Miller v. Grants Pass Irrigation District

45 Or. App. 823 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 14, 1980

In Board of Directors v. … As we stated in Comley v.