Case law

Walters v. Hill

221 Or. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 23, 2008

In support of his argument, plaintiff relies on our decision in Roof v. Board of Parole, 85 Or App 188 , 736 P2d 193 (1987). … First, in State ex rel Caughey v.

Arnaud v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

61 Or. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 16, 1983

See Stone v. SAIF, 294 Or 442 , 656 P2d 940 (1983). Claimant is entitled to attorney fees for prevailing on the issue of penalties before the referee. … Because that issue was not litigated before the Board, attorney fees are not justified on Board review.

Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Ausbie

107 Or. App. 762 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 1991

We reversed the Board’s order in Donna E. Aschbacher, supra, Aetna Casualty Co. v. … Accordingly, the Board must reconsider its decision in the light of our opinion. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration in the light of Aetna Casualty Co. v. Aschbacher, supra.

State v. Clatsop County

249 Or. App. 566 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 2, 2012

Board of Commissioners, 351 Or 219 , 264 P3d 1265 (2011) (Friends II)- DLCD v. Clatsop County, 351 Or 403 , 271 P3d 115 (2011). … We rejected that argument for the reasons set out in DLCD v.

Damm v. Washington County School District No. 7

118 Or. App. 85 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 1993

Initially, the Board found that claimant’s work was a material contributing cause of her back condition. We remanded for reconsideration in light of our decision in Aetna Casualty Co. v. … Corp. v. Damm, 107 Or App 764 , 812 P2d 854 (1991). On remand, the Board found that claimant’s work was not the major contributing cause of her back condition.

Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Spivey

197 Or. App. 67 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 12, 2005

PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993). We first examine the text of the statutes in context. If the meaning of the statutes is clear, our analysis is complete. … ORS 656.295(8) provides that the board’s order is final unless a party files a petition for judicial review with the Court of Appeals within 30 days after the date of mailing of *70 the board’s order.

Haney v. Schiedler

202 Or. App. 51 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 2005

State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). Further, “error apparent” is determined by reference to the law existing as of the time the appeal is decided, and not as of the time of trial. State v. … Brown, 310 Or at 355 .

Hammock v. SAIF Corp.

198 Or. App. 480 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 23, 2005

Elliott, 53 Van Natta 575 (2001)[, affd, Elliott v. SAIF, 182 Or App 384 , 52 P3d 447 (2002)]. … Claimant also argues that, although he “clearly stated that Elliott [v.

Giltner v. Commodore Contract Carriers

14 Or. App. 340 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 27, 1973

In Blaine v. Ross Lbr. … See Livingston v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 200 Or 468 , 266 P2d 684 (1954); Casper v. SAIF, — Or App —, 511 P2d 451 (1973); Fenn v. Parker Construction Co., 6 Or App 412 , 487 P2d 894 (1971).

Branton v. Oregon State Penitentiary

83 Or. App. 571 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 1987

Petitioner finally argues that it was improper to consider polygraph evidence at all for the same reasons that they are inadmissible when the rules of evidence are in effect, citing State v. … Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984). We disagree. In Higley v.

SAIF Corp. v. Ledin

149 Or. App. 94 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 2, 1997

The administrative law judge (ALJ) sustained the objection on the ground that, under our opinion in Tattoo v. … Claimant contends that the Board correctly read Tattoo to preclude employers from amending their denials and that we subsequently said as much in SAIF v. Mize, 129 Or App 636 , 879 P2d 907 (1994).

Allen v. Paula Insurance

182 Or. App. 259 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 2002

The board upheld the denial. … See also Kempf v.

In re the Marriage of Haggerty

280 Or. App. 733 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 2016

Id. at 166 (quoting Brown and Brown, 259 Or App 618, 627 , 315 P3d 422 (2013), rev den, 355 Or 142 (2014)). … See Jones v.

State v. Bevan

235 Or. App. 533 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 2010

Id. at 299-306 ; State v. Brown, *540 297 Or 404, 417 , 687 P2d 751 (1984). 3 The proponent of the evidence has the burden to establish its scientific validity. State v. Perry, 347 Or 110, 122 , 218 P3d 95 (2009). … State v. Aman, 194 Or App 463, 472 , 95 P3d 244 (2004), rev dismissed as improvidently allowed, 339 Or 281 (2005).

Van Horn v. Employment Division

26 Or. App. 63 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 19, 1976

Van Horn, claimant, from an order of the Employment Appeals Board which approved and upheld a referee’s finding, after hearing, that claimant was disqualified for receiving unemployment compensation under ORS 657.176(2)(a … We distinguish this case from Babcock v. Employment Division, 25 Or App 661, 665 , 550 P2d 1233 (1976), and Geraths v.

First State Bank v. Hoehnke Nursery Co.

63 Or. App. 816 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 1983

Huff v. Bretz, 285 Or 507, 522-23 , 592 P2d 204 (1979); Empire Building Supply v. EKO Investments, 40 Or App 739, 745 , 596 P2d 593 (1979). … Call v. Jeremiah, 246 Or 568, 571-78 , 425 P2d 502 (1967); Thompson v. Thompson, 233 Or 262 , 378 P2d 281 (1963).

State v. Gensler

266 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 8, 2014

State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). … First, in State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 628-29 , 317 P3d 889 (2013), the court held that appellate review of purported instructional plain error is governed by the principles described in Brown and Ailes .

JELD-WEN, INC. v. PacifiCORP

240 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

suffered or to the findings of said board, and further agree to conform promptly to the findings of said board and to abide thereby * * *." … The Supreme Court's reasoning in Snider v. Production Chemical Manufacturing, Inc., 348 Or. 257 , 230 P.3d 1 (2010), and this court's reasoning in Martin v.

Stromme v. Nasburg and Co.

80 Or. App. 26 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 18, 1986

In Payless Drug Stores v. Brown, 300 Or 243 , 708 P2d 1143 (1985), the Supreme Court modified our Mt. Fir holding. It explained: “Beyond the ‘preservation principle,’ the Court of Appeals in Mt. Fir Lumber Company v. … Because defendant’s Statute of Limitations defense required an evidentiary showing at the trial, Payless Drug Stores v. Brown, supra, and Mt. Fir Lumber Company v. Temple Dist.

Ryan v. Weyerhaeuser

268 Or. App. 669 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 22, 2015

Claimant argues that the board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence or substantial reason. See ORS 183.482(8)(c). We disagree and, therefore, affirm. … Cummings v. SAIF, 197 Or App 312, 318 , 105 P3d 875 (2005) (quoting Dietz v. Ramuda, 130 Or App 397, 401 , 882 P2d 618 (1994), rev dismissed, 321 Or 416 (1995)).