Case law

State v. SANNES

218 Or. App. 728 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 19, 2008

App. 728 STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Colby David SANNES, Defendant-Appellant. 200419116; A128218. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Submitted on Record and Briefs February 1, 2008. Decided March 19, 2008. … State v. Brown, 297 Or. 404, 445 , 687 P.2d 751 (1984) (evidence of polygraph examination is inadmissible in a criminal trial). Reversed and remanded.

Vestal v. Barrett Business Services

164 Or. App. 733 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 5, 2000

ORS 656.005(13); see Trabosh v. Washington County, 140 Or App 159 , 915 P2d 1011 (1996). … Claimant also did not argue, at the Board or on review, that Allen was a party to the employment contract because he was an agent for an undisclosed principal. See Salem Tent & Awning v.

Sherman v. Western Employers Insurance

87 Or. App. 602 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 7, 1987

The Board found that claimant did not inform Hotchkiss at the time of the alleged injury. … Coastal Farm Supply v. Hultberg, 84 Or App 282, 285 , 734 P2d 1 (1987). On March 6, 1985, Hotchkiss signed an 801 claim form.

LaDelle v. Life Care Center

102 Or. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 6, 1990

Retroactive application of a rule is not always *53 improper. 1 In Amfac, Inc. v. … In the light of our decision in Amfac, Inc. v. Garcia-Maciel, supra, the time limits cannot be applied retroactively.

Van Raden Industries v. Smith

200 Or. App. 356 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 2005

See Dietz v. Ramuda, 130 Or App 397,401 , 882 P2d 618 , rev dismissed, 321 Or 416 (1995). … In light of the board’s mistaken interpretation of Nye’s opinion, we remand the case to the board for reconsideration. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Utrera v. Dept. of General Services

89 Or. App. 114 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 1987

Rogers v. Tri-Met, 75 Or App 470 , 706 P2d 209 (1985). … Scheuning v. J. R. Simplot & Company, 84 Or App 622 , 735 P2d 1 , rev den 303 Or 590 (1987). Reversed and remanded.

Stone Container v. Fryman

112 Or. App. 8 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 4, 1992

PER CURIAM This case is before the court on employer’s petition for judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board determining claimant’s claim to be compensable. … See SAIF v. Basham, 112 Or App 6, 827 P2d 204 (1992). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

State v. Carter

24 Or. App. 829 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 1976

This case raises the same question decided adversely to the defendant in State v. … State v. Serrell, 265 Or 216 , 507 P2d 1405 (1973). See also State v. Brown, 23 Or App 158 , 541 P2d 491 (1975); State v. Heyer, 16 Or App 22 , 517 P2d 314 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974).

Keeney v. University of Oregon

178 Or. App. 198 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 28, 2001

Tanner v. OHSU, 157 Or App 502 , 971 P2d 435 (1998). … The trial court agreed and, citing Ososke v.

State v. Korhonen

211 Or. App. 608 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 28, 2007

State v. Vazquez-Escobar, 211 Or App 115 , 153 P3d 168 (2007); State v. Brown, 200 Or App 427 , 115 P3d 254 , rev den, 339 Or 544 (2005).

City of Portland Engineering Employees Ass'n v. City of Portland

45 Or. App. 205 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 17, 1980

See LaGrande/Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or 137 , 576 P2d 1204 (1978). Nor is the determination for the court. We held in OSEA v. … The issue here is whether the group described by the Association in its petition is an appropriate bargaining unit, and we uphold the Board’s determination that it is not. OSEA v. Deschutes County, supra. Affirmed.

Yeager v. Benton County

183 Or. App. 549 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 11, 2002

Petitioners seek review of a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) order affirming a Benton County Board of Commissioners (board) decision to grant a conditional use permit to allow a “horse training and boarding facility” on … As the Supreme Court explained in Clark v.

State v. Knaub

90 Or. App. 152 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 9, 1988

He relies on State v. Verdine, 290 Or 553 , 624 P2d 580 (1981), and State v. Gressel, 276 Or 333 , 554 P2d 1014 (1976). … State v. Classen, supra, 285 Or at 232 .

Peerless Pacific Co. v. Employment Division

27 Or. App. 909 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 27, 1976

As we have previously said, we cannot disturb a reasonable conclusion drawn from the facts by the Board even though, were we sitting as triers of fact, we might well reach a different conclusion. Grigsby v. … See Fajardo v. Morgan, 15 Or App 454 , 516 P2d 495 (1973). Affirmed.

Fifth Avenue Corp. v. Washington County

28 Or. App. 485 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 1977

On November 27, 1973, the Board adopted a new comprehensive plan for the county. … See, e.g., Gayton Triangle Land Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 216 Va 764, 222 SE2d 570 (1976) (variance procedures not followed).

Cloud v. Klamath County School District

191 Or. App. 610 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 28, 2004

On review, the board reversed the ALJ’s order. … In Hill , we acknowledged that, “[i]n Granner v.

Dibrito v. Adult & Family Services

149 Or. App. 323 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 23, 1997

We take our facts from the Supreme Court’s description in Dibrito v. SAIF, 319 Or 244, 246-49 , 876 P2d 459 (1994). “Claimant was a caseworker for Adult and Family Services. … “Claimant sought judicial review in the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Board’s order without opinion. DiBrito v.

Les Schwab Tire Centers of Oregon, Inc. v. Ivory Ranch, Inc.

63 Or. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 1983

Milgram Food Stores, Inc. v. Gelco Corp., 550 F Supp 992 (WD Mo 1982); Brown v. Coastal Truckways, Inc., 44 NC App 454, 261 SE2d 266 (1980); Barber v. White, 46 NC App 110, 264 SE2d 385 (1980); Jahn v. … Gervey Interiors, Inc., 407 So2d 312 (Fla 4th Dist Ct App 1981) (certifying a conflict with Miller v. Jung, supra); Chancellor, Inc. v. Hamilton Appliance Co., Inc., 175 NJ Super 345, 418 A2d 1326, 1329 (1980); Brown v.

State v. Najibi

150 Or. App. 194 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 24, 1997

See State v. … brown shoes with red laces” on the day of the robbery.

Sisters of Providence v. Ridenour

162 Or. App. 467 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 1999

The Board reversed. The Board reasoned that, under Industrial Indemnity Co. v. … We review the Board’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c); Garcia v.