Case law

Mendoza v. SAIF Corp.

61 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 1982

Although we usually defer to a referee’s finding on the issue of credibility, see Hannan v. … We therefore reverse and remand to the Board for entry of an order requiring SAIF to accept the claim.

Thompson v. School District No. UH7J

25 Or. App. 65 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 1976

Dabritz v. Baker Co. School Dist., 13 Or App 1 , 508 P2d 459 (1973). … Co. v. Portland etc. Ry. Co., 84 Or 524 , 163 P 1173 (1917). In support of its position, the district incorrectly relies on this court’s decision in Dabritz v. Baker Co.

Freeman v. Employment Department

157 Or. App. 530 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 1998

We addressed, and rejected, the same argument in Haskins v. Employment Dept., 156 Or App 285 , 965 P2d 422 (1998). … See Bennett v. Board of Optometry, 125 Or App 66, 71 , 865 P2d 362 (1993), rev den 318 Or 582 (1994) (“an agency is not compelled to excuse a pro se litigant from procedural requirements”).

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. East

38 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 15, 1979

Dept. v. Dubell, 28 Or App 449 , 559 P2d 1302 (1977); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Zinzer, 20 Or App 688 , 533 P2d 355 (1975). Our decision in State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. … Dept. v. Nagle, supra; State v. Peterson, 3 Or App 52, 54 , 471 P2d 853 (1970) (order establishing wardship is appealable); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v.

Rieck v. Watt

53 Or. App. 729 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 31, 1981

In Gano v. … "SENATOR BROWNE asked for committee feeling on requiring an audible signal when passing on a two-lane road. "SENATOR COOK is for it. "SENATOR BROWN is against it.

Underwood v. Pendleton Grain Growers

112 Or. App. 170 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 25, 1992

See Burge v. SAIF, 108 Or App 145, 148 , 813 P2d 81 (1991); O’Connell v. SAIF, 19 Or App 735, 738 , 528 P2d 1064 (1974). Affirmed. … The Board found that claimant knew “he could be fired if he called upon a customer [while] under the influence’ of intoxicants.”

Trout v. Umatilla County School District Uh3-Milton-Freewater

77 Or. App. 95 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 1985

In Hall v. The May Dept. … See Hall v. The May Dept. Stores, supra, 292 Or at 139 . The comments made by District personnel and board members did not reach that extreme level.

O'NEAL v. Sisters of Providence

22 Or. App. 9 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 1975

Larson, supra. *17 The same concepts are reflected in White v. State Ind. Acc. Com., supra. See also Mathis v. SAIF, 10 Or App 139 , 499 P2d 1331 (1972). … In Beaudry v.

Mathel v. Josephine County

122 Or. App. 424 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 1993

Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order that upheld employer’s denial of his claim for myocardial infarction. … The Board, following our decision in SAIF v. Hukari, 113 Or App 475 , 833 P2d 1307 , rev den 314 Or 391 (1992), upheld the denial.

Hammer v. City of Eugene

202 Or. App. 189 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 2005

Brown v. … Lingle v.

State v. Davilla

157 Or. App. 639 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 1998

State v. Jones, 315 Or 225 , 844 P2d 188 (1992). … In State v.

SAIF Corp. v. Vivanco

216 Or. App. 210 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 28, 2007

In support of its conclusion, the board quoted from the Supreme Court’s opinion in Morales v. … See Stone v.

J. D. B. v. Muller

313 Or. App. 171 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 14, 2021

Brown v. Roach, 249 Or App 579, 583, 277 P3d 628 (2012). “[E]ach ‘contact,’ individually, must give rise to sub- jective and objectively reasonable alarm or coercion.” Reitz v. … B. v.

Willhite v. Asplundh Tree Experts

136 Or. App. 120 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 9, 1995

PER CURIAM Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board. … They ask that we remand to the Board for reconsideration in light of the new law. We agree that a remand is appropriate. See Volk v. America West Airlines, 135 Or App 565 , 899 P2d 746 (1995).

State v. Baughman

276 Or. App. 754 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 9, 2016

State v. Brown, 272 Or App 424, 429 , 355 P3d 216 (2015). … Brown, 272 Or App at 431 .

Saif Corp. v. Moe

142 Or. App. 62 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 3, 1996

SAIF seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (board) holding that decedent was a subject Oregon worker at the time he sustained a fatal injury in Montana and that his widow was therefore entitled to survivor … Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 295 , 787 P2d 884 (1990). SAIF urges us to construe the term “incidental” under the statutory construction template of PGE v.

State v. Rollf

40 Or. App. 535 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 1979

She stated that attached to the key ring is a long brown plastic plate containing silver letters spelling "KATHY.” … State v. Walker, 244 Or 404 , 417 P2d 1004 (1966); State v. Williams, 2 Or App 367, 468 P2d 909 (1970).

Dunwoody v. Handskill Corp.

185 Or. App. 605 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 8, 2003

In Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 , 588 P2d 1087 (1978), the plaintiff brought a claim for wrongful *611 discharge after being terminated for filing a workers’ compensation claim. … Brown, 284 Or at 612-13 (internal quotation marks omitted). Several years later, in Delaney v.

Giusti Wine Co. v. Adams

94 Or. App. 175 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 23, 1988

PER CURIAM In this workers’ compensation case, EBI seeks review of a decision of the Board determining that claimant’s request for hearing was not untimely. … The Board held that the request for hearing was not untimely, because the time for filing the request did not begin to run until claimant actually received notice of the denial. As we held in Cowart v.

City of Milwaukee v. Employment Division

30 Or. App. 693 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 1977

The employer seeks review of an order of the Employment Appeals Board holding that claimant voluntarily left work with good cause and was therefore entitled to receive immediate unemployment compensation. … Subsequent to the Board’s decision in this case we held, in Beaverton Sch. Dist. No. 48 v. Emp.