Case law

Nicholson v. Salem Area Transit

126 Or. App. 172 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 26, 1994

We have disposed of most of the issues that claimant raises in Hathaway v. Health Future Enterprises, 125 Or App 549 , 865 P2d 503 (1993). … Claimant contends that the Board’s ruling that claimant has no right to a hearing on palliative care disputes violates the United States and Oregon constitutions.

Eagle-Air Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Haphey

272 Or. App. 651 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 29, 2015

See White v. … Interstate Roofing, Inc. v.

Combatley v. Combatley

9 Or. App. 321 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1972

In Brown, Adm’r v. Miles, 193 Or 466, 480 , 238 P2d 761 (1951), the court said: “The rules applicable to the construction of written contracts in general are to be applied in construing a postnuptial agreement.

Day v. City of Canby

143 Or. App. 341 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 4, 1996

She relies on Miller v. … The Supreme Court affirmed with respect to the Board, because the board’s enabling statute, ORS 488.600(1), provided that the Board “ ‘may make special regulations consistent with the safety * * * of the public.’ ” Id. at

Fenn v. Charles T. Parker Construction Company

6 Or. App. 412 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 12, 1971

On appeal to the Workmen’s Compensation Board the denial of the claim was affirmed by a two-to-one decision. The claimant appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the board and held the claim compensable. … In Livingston v. State Ind. Acc.

State v. Gherasim

153 Or. App. 313 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 1, 1998

See State v. … State v.

Rhoades v. Sandy Rural Fire Protection District 72

169 Or. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 9, 2000

Because claimant had not established good cause for his late filing, the Board dismissed his request for a hearing. In Ogden Aviation v. … Relying on Voorheis v.

Shook v. Travelodge of Oregon, Inc.

63 Or. App. 137 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 11, 1983

As we stated in Bartlam v. … Stubblefield v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 163 Or 432, 448 , 96 P2d 774 , 98 P2d 14 (1939); Rotan v. School Dist. No. 110C, 13 Or App 139, 151 , 509 P2d 452 (1973).

Yielding v. West Foods, Inc.

23 Or. App. 79 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 1975

The Closing and Evaluation Division of the Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded 15 percent or 48 degrees, the hearing referee permanent and total disability, the Workmen’s Compensation Board 30 percent or 96 degrees, and … the circuit court agreed with the Board.

State v. D. R. M. (In re D. R. M.)

292 Or. App. 887 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 18, 2018

State v. B. H. C. , 288 Or. App. 120 , 404 P.3d 1110 (2017). … State v. Brown , 310 Or. 347 , 355, 800 P.2d 259 (1990). Although we had not yet decided B. H.

EBI Companies v. Grover

90 Or. App. 524 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 20, 1988

G & S Masonry and EBI Companies (EBI) seek review of a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) which awarded claimant permanent total disability and found EBI responsible. … See Smith v. Ed’s Pancake House, 27 Or App 361 , 556 P2d 158 (1976). EBI is the responsible carrier. Affirmed.

Progressive Party of Oregon v. Atkins

276 Or. App. 700 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 9, 2016

Hood River Valley v. Board of Cty. Commissioners, 193 Or App 485, 500 , 91 P3d 748 (2004); see Beck v. … We described that exception in Tanner v.

Christensen v. Stayton Canning Co.

31 Or. App. 1291 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 1977

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed an order of the referee awarding claimant 208 degrees unscheduled disability, 30 degrees left leg disability and 38.4 degrees for disability of the right arm. … The work claimant does on his farm is much more substantial than that described in Hill v. U S. Plywood-Champion, 12 Or App 1 , 503 P2d 728 (1972), rev den (1973), and Hampton v. SAIF, 23 Or App 74 , 541 P2d 167 (1975).

Hallmark Furniture v. Saif Corp.

81 Or. App. 316 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 1986

He relied on Industrial Indemnity Co. v. … The Board agreed that Kearns controls but decided that SAIF had proved that there was no such causal connection. We agree with the Board and the referee that Kearns controls this case.

Coastal Farm Supply v. Hultberg

84 Or. App. 282 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 11, 1987

Humphrey v. SAIF, 58 Or App 360, 363 , 648 P2d 367 (1982). … Davies v. Hanel Lumber Company, 67 Or App 35, 38 , 676 P2d 946 (1984). The referee found claimant’s demeanor candid. We defer to that evaluation.

Portland Fire Fighters' Assn. v. City of Portland

321 Or. App. 569 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 2022

In Portland Fire Fighters’ Assn. v. … Oregon Tech AAUP v.

SAIF Corp. v. Vanlanen

120 Or. App. 613 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 2, 1993

PER CURIAM Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board holding that its request for review of a May 3, 1991, decision of the referee did not stay payment of benefits subsequently awarded by an August … Diamond Fruit Growers v. Goss, 120 Or App 390 , 852 P2d 915 (1993). Therefore, we reverse the Board’s order. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Clackamas Town Center Associates v. Wolf

105 Or. App. 593 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 13, 1991

This case is controlled in part by Lloyd Corporation v. … In State v.

Grable v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

55 Or. App. 627 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 1982

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the referee. On appeal, this court affirmed without opinion. Grable v. Weyerhaeuser Company, 47 Or App 1 , 614 P2d 635 (1980). … Grable v. Weyerhaeuser Company, 291 Or 387 , 631 P2d 768 (1981). SUPREME COURT ANALYSIS The Supreme Court’s concern with this case lay in the referee’s (and, by implication, the Board’s and this court’s) use of Smith v.

Carmel Estates, Inc. v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

51 Or. App. 435 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 30, 1981

Board of Adjustment, 41 NJ 161, 219 A2d 615 (1966); see also Card v. Flegel, 26 Or App 783 , 554 P2d 596 (1976); 8A E. … On appeal from that order we held, in Board of Comm, of Clackamas County v. LCDC, 35 Or App 725 , 582 P2d 59 (1978), that the LCDC did not have the authority to direct the county to take a particular action.