Case law

State v. Roskelley

336 Or. App. 360 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 27, 2024

State v. Kirkland, 268 Or App 420, 425, 342 P3d 163 (2015) (quoting State v. Sigman, 141 Or App 479, 483, 919 P2d 45 (1996)). … The board shall resolve any conflict as to what may be a just and proper distribution.” 368 State v.

SAIF Corp. v. Ross

192 Or. App. 200 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 18, 2004

In SAIF v. … We upheld the board’s interpretation, finding it not implausible. Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P2d 119 (1994). Petitioners now ask us to reconsider our opinion.

Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Benjamin Franklin Savings & Loan

73 Or. App. 795 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 1985

SAIF Corp. v. Brewer, 62 Or App 124 (1983); Boise Cascade Corp. v. Starbuck, 61 Or App 631 (1983); Perdue v. SAIF, 53 Or App 117 (1981).” (Emphasis in original.) … Bracke v.

Saif Corp. v. Glubrecht

156 Or. App. 339 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 1998

See Wait v. … Polk County Bd. of Comm’rs v.

Matter of Compensation of Starbuck

61 Or. App. 631 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 3, 1983

Self-insured employer Boise Cascade Corporation (Boise) seeks judicial review of a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) that Boise is responsible for an aggravation of claimant’s low back condition. … In Valtinson v.

SAIF Corp. v. Dubose

193 Or. App. 62 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 14, 2004

SAIF v. Dubose, 166 Or App 642 , 999 P2d 529 (2000). The Supreme Court reversed our decision and remanded the case to us for resolution of SAIF’s remaining assignments of error. SAIF v. … We recently resolved that issue in SAIF v. Wart, 192 Or App 505 , 87 P3d 1138 (2004), contrary to SAIF’s position. The board’s award of an assessed attorney fee was not error. Affirmed.

Futrell v. United Airlines

59 Or. App. 571 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 1982

See Fraijo v. Fred N. Bay News Co., 59 Or App 260 , 650 P2d 1019 (1982). Unscheduled permanent partial disability is assessed on the basis of loss of earning capacity. Surratt v. … As we indicated in Fraijo v. Fred N.

Cret v. Employment Department

146 Or. App. 139 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 29, 1997

The Board offered no rational explanation for its contradictory conclusions as to the sufficiency of evidence in the two matters. Tilden v. … See Fort Smith Chair Co. v. Laney, 238 Ark 636 , 383 SW2d 666 (1964); Merryman v. Administrator, Unemployment Comp. Act, 23 Conn Supp 233, 181 A2d 260 (1962); Bilodeau v.

State ex rel. Schrodt v. Jackson County

262 Or. App. 437 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 2014

Doughton v. … The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has similarly interpreted the term “permit” in ORS 215.402(4), relying, in part, on our decision in Doughton. Tirumali v.

State v. Palmer

336 Or. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 14, 2024

As in the [Boxberger v. Board of Parole, 123 Or App 339, 858 P2d 1356 (1993)] case, I find [D] and [T] were particularly vulnerable by reason of their extreme disability as that term was used in Boxberger. … (citing Jarvis v. State Board of Parole, 96 Or App 322, 773 P2d 3, rev den, 308 Or 197 (1989)).

Hiner v. Crawford Health & Rehabilitation

183 Or. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 25, 2002

Ledin, 52 Van Natta 682 (2000), affd, SAIF v. … In Volk v.

Edwards v. Perry

130 Or. App. 165 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 7, 1994

PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993). The context of a statute includes other provisions of the same statute. 317 Or at 611 . … Wills v. Harris, 57 Or App 712, 715 , 646 P2d 39 (1982).

State v. Roy

619 P.2d 648 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 4, 1980

Brown, Atty. Gen., and Walter L. Barrie, Sol. Gen., Salem. Before JOSEPH, P.J., and WARDEN and WARREN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals from the judgment on his conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. … Under the rule in State v. Hartfield, 45 Or. App. 639 , 609 P.2d 390 (1980), that ruling was erroneous.

State v. Tavernier

27 Or. App. 115 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 25, 1976

based upon the stipulation of the parties that the defendant would submit to examination by "a qualified polygraph operator” and that no objection would be made to the admission at trial of the resulting evidence, see State v. … worked as a polygraph examiner for a period of five years for a governmental agency within the State of Oregon and have completed 200 examinations; and *118 "(7) Have successfully completed an examination conducted by the board

Citizens Savings & Loan v. St. Clair

106 Or. App. 755 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 24, 1991

We affirm the Board’s decision that Citizens could not deny the claim after having accepted it, Bauman v. SAIF, supra, and that it acted unreasonably in doing so. … Additionally, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings and that the Board could properly conclude that claimant was Citizens’ employee. See Lib *760 erty Northwest Ins. Corp. v.

Oregon State Employes Ass'n v. Oregon State University

30 Or. App. 757 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 1977

OSEA’s argument principally rests on federal decisions interpreting the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 USC § 151 et seq., particularly Labor Board v. … In Klamath Co. v.

Pincetich v. Nolan

252 Or. App. 42 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 29, 2012

That exception provides: “(2) The board, arbitrator or court may not apply the provisions of [ORS 701.131(1)] to a contractor if the board, arbitrator or court determines that: «S|í * * * * “(c) The proceeding: “(A) Is directed … Parsons v. Henry, 65 Or App 627, 629 , 672 P2d 717 (1983), rev den, 297 Or 82 (1984). ORS 701.131(1) is one of the provisions in chapter 701 that the legislature adopted to do that.

Dead Indian Memorial Road Neighbors v. Jackson County

188 Or. App. 503 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 9, 2003

That statute provides, in part: “(2) The jurisdiction of the board: “(a) Is limited to those cases in which the petitioner has exhausted all remedies available by right before petitioning the board for review [.]” … Choban v. Washington County, 25 Or LUBA 572, 578 (1993); McConnell v. City of West Linn, 17 Or LUBA 502, 506 (1989).

Skyline/Homette Corp. v. Boling

182 Or. App. 273 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 2002

Daquilante-Richards v. Cigna Ins. Cas., 149 Or App 682, 688 , 945 P2d 91 (1997). Nor does treatment that is only palliative establish that an injured worker’s condition is not stationary. See Clarke v. … See Skochenko v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 118 Or App 241, 245 , 846 P2d 1212 (1993) (reversing and remanding *278 where the board’s misinterpretation of medical evidence may have influenced its ultimate conclusion).

King v. Oregon Steel Mills, Inc.

25 Or. App. 685 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 1976

See Mathis v. SAIF, 10 Or App 139 , 499 P2d 1331 (1972). … Sisters of Providence, 22 Or App 9 , 537 P2d 580 (1975). 3 ORS 656.301, 656.298(6); Coday v.