Case law

Christian v. State Accident Insurance Fund

32 Or. App. 205 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 1978

The letter informed him in plain terms that such a request must be in writing and received by the Board within 60 days of the mailing of the letter. The deadline for the request was May 2. … The Supreme Court held in Sekermestrovich v. SAIF, 280 Or 723 , 573 P2d 275 (1977), that ORS 656.319(1)(b) is to be construed comparably to ORS 18.160 1 which regulates relief from default in civil cases.

State v. LAGRASSA

235 Or. App. 150 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 28, 2010

First, in State v. … Then, in State v.

SAIF Corp. v. Blakely

160 Or. App. 242 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 28, 1999

See Dawkins v. Pacific Motor Trucking, 308 Or 254, 258 , 778 P2d 497 (1989); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Kepford, 100 Or App 410, 414 , 786 P2d 745 , rev den 310 Or 71 (1990). … See Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 205-06 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration. Claimant’s aggravation rights had expired in July 1984.

State v. Orans

56 Or. App. 681 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 1982

Ashley v. Psy. Sec. Rev. Bd., 53 Or App 333, 338 , 632 P2d 15 (1981). … State v. Nesbitt, 23 Or App 202, 211-12 , 541 P2d 1055 (1975), rev den (1976).

SAIF Corp. v. Edison

117 Or. App. 455 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 1992

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board holding that claimant’s injury claim for a stroke is compensable, contending that the request for hearing was untimely or, if timely, that the Board applied … In Norton v.

Stockdale v. SAIF Corp.

192 Or. App. 289 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 2004

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (board) upholding the denial of the compensability of her combined condition. … To interpret ORS 656.262(6)(c), we turn to the template of PGE v.

Wasson v. Evanite Fiber Corp.

117 Or. App. 246 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 1992

The Board found that her depression has worsened since the DCS; however, it ruled that it was not compensable, because it was the same condition that had been denied in the DCS. Under Proctor v. … Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the depression was the same.

State v. Gangi

66 Or. App. 582 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 18, 1984

See, e.g., State v. Hattersly, 294 Or 592, 597 , 660 P2d 674 (1983); State v. Koennecke, 274 Or 169, 172 , 545 P2d 127 (1976); State v. Sieckmann, 251 Or 259, 260-261 , 445 P2d 599 (1968); State v. … In State v. Cooper, supra, the defendant was found not responsible due to mental disease or defect, and was placed under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board under former ORS 161.341(3).

Hutchinson v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

81 Or. App. 162 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 1986

We affirmed the Board’s decision without opinion. Petitioner points out that, under Spivey v. SAIF, 79 Or App 568 , 720 P2d 755 (1986), he is entitled to attorney fees. … Spivey v. SAIF, supra. Reconsideration allowed; reversed and remanded for determination of attorney fees; otherwise affirmed.

Bostick v. Ron Rust Drywall

138 Or. App. 552 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 24, 1996

We affirm the Board and write only to explain our understanding of ORS 656.210(3). … Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 299 Or 290 , 702 P2d 403 (1985); Stiennon v. SAIF, 68 Or App 735, 738 , 683 P2d 556 , rev den 298 Or 238 (1984).

Lindsey v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

60 Or. App. 361 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 24, 1982

Lindsey v. SAIF, 58 Or App 389 , 650 P2d 1097 (1982). She now seeks review by the Supreme Court. … See SAIF v. Mathews, 55 Or App 608, 612 , 639 P2d 668 (1982).

Reed v. Johnson

170 Or. App. 767 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 8, 2000

Plaintiff appeals a judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board) decision that postponed his release date. … Our review of the record discloses that the trial court order was proper, and we conclude that attorney fees were correctly imposed. 1 See Antunez v. Lampert, 169 Or App 196 , 7 P3d 735 (2000).

Bolton v. Oregonian Publishing Co.

93 Or. App. 289 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 5, 1988

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board affirming the referee’s determination of the rate of temporary partial disability compensation. … Reed v. SAIF, 63 Or App 1 , 662 P2d 776 (1983).

Trent v. Connor Enterprises, Inc.

300 Or. App. 165 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 2019

Biggerstaff v. Board of County Commissioners, 240 Or App 46, 56, 245 P3d 688 (2010). … PGE v.

State v. Marcus

292 Or. App. 770 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 11, 2018

See State v. Jury , 185 Or. App. 132 , 136, 57 P.3d 970 (2002), rev. den. , 335 Or. 504 , 72 P.3d 636 (2003) (the law at the time of appeal is considered when deciding whether a trial court erred); see also State v. … Brown , 310 Or. 347 , 355-56, 800 P.2d 259 (1990) (error is plain if it is legal error; apparent and not reasonably in dispute; and appears on the face of the record). *791 Moreover, given the gravity of an erroneous true-life

State ex rel. Willamette Community Health Solutions v. Lane County

274 Or. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 28, 2015

Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald PUD, 339 Or 631, 642 , 125 P3d 740 (2005). That principle of statutory construction, however, is not a rule of law, but merely a guide to determining the legislature’s intent. … Columbia River Television v. Multnomah Co., 299 Or 325, 333 , 702 P2d 1065 (1985).

Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Sams

193 Or. App. 258 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 28, 2004

The board’s finding to the contrary is not supported by substantial evidence. See Kenimer v. … , the board’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence); SAIF v.

State v. Berg

115 Or. App. 254 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 16, 1992

State v. Kennedy, 113 Or App 134 , 813 P2d 712 (1992). … State v. Hill, 112 Or App 213 , 827 P2d 951 (1992).

Fimbres v. SAIF Corp.

197 Or. App. 613 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 16, 2005

The board rejected claimant’s argument. Relying on our decision in Elder v. … In Lecangdam v.

Welker Ex Rel. Bradbury v. Teacher Standards & Practices Commission

152 Or. App. 190 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 21, 1998

Brown, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Nicole M. Hendricks and Enfield Brown Collins & Knivila. Michael C. Livingston, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. … The complainant circulated the report to The Dalles school board.