Case law

Umrein v. Topaz

61 Or. App. 601 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 16, 1983

Telford v. Clackamas County, 44 Or App 399 , 605 P2d 1365 (1980); Housing Auth. of Lane County v. Bd of Comm’rs, 35 Or App 785, 787 , 582 P2d 844 (1978), rev den 285 Or 73 (1979). … In what it denominates a cross-appeal, but see Artman v. Ray, 263 Or 529 , 501 P2d 63 , 502 P2d 1376 (1972), the city contends that plaintiff is estopped by an earlier proceeding from raising the issues she does here.

Bowman v. Oregon Transfer Co.

33 Or. App. 241 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 20, 1978

Since this court was established in 1969 it has reviewed de novo, see Hannan v. … In Sarty v.

O'Neal v. State Accident Insurance Fund

19 Or. App. 739 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 1974

Claimant, being dissatisfied with the order of the hearing officer making a permanent partial disability award of 96 degrees, appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The Board affirmed the hearing officer. … If claimant desires the treatment suggested by the psychiatrist (the record indicates she does not), as the Board’s order, supra, notes, it is available to her without a reopening of her claim. See, Wait v.

LeBeau v. Adult & Family Services Division

43 Or. App. 176 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 19, 1979

Brown v. Lobdell, 36 Or App 397 , 585 P2d 4 (1978), rev den 285 Or 1 (1979). ( 602 P2d 351 , rev den 288 Or 519 (1980))

Booras v. North Bend Garbage

81 Or. App. 27 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 27, 1986

On de novo review, we find that claimant showed that he has suffered some worsening of his compensable condition and, therefore, we reverse the Board and reinstate the referee’s opinion. Consolidated Freightways v. … The issue of responsibility was not raised before the Board on review and is not considered in this appeal.

Wallace v. STATE EX REL. PERB

245 Or. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 10, 2011

WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Oregon ex rel. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD and Public Employees Retirement System; Public Employees Retirement Board; Paul R. … Ayres v.

State v. Ford

20 Or. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 10, 1975

State v. Keith, 2 Or App 133, 142 , 465 P2d 724 , Sup Ct review denied (1970). A search and seizure cannot be justified by its fruits. State v. Dunavant, 250 Or 570 , 444 P2d 1 (1968). … State v. Parks, 5 Or App 601 , 485 P2d 1246 (1971). Similarly, there is nothing illegal about owning a bent spoon.

Hughes v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

94 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 16, 1988

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). … We decline to search the record to determine if the facts recited by the Board are supported in the record. The Board adequately explains the reasoning from the facts it found to the conclusion it reached. Affirmed.

Conagra, Inc. v. Jeffries

118 Or. App. 373 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 1993

See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Knapp, 100 Or App 615 , 788 P2d 462 (1990). It contends, however, that at the time of the stipulation withdrawing the denial of the claim, there were no amounts due. … The Board affirmed the order and the order controls.

Lincoln Loan Co. v. City of Portland

158 Or. App. 574 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 24, 1999

Brown v. J. C. Penney Co., 297 Or 695 , 688 P2d 811 (1984). … See Noble v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 485, 494 , 964 P2d 990 (1998) (“Paul v. Davis, 424 US 693 , 96 S Ct 1155 , 47 L Ed 2d 405 (1976), and Siegert v.

Kessen v. Boise Cascade Corp.

71 Or. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 19, 1984

Agreeing with the determinations of both the referee and the Board, we hold that they are not compensable. *548 The applicable statute is ORS 656.005(8)(a), which defines a “compensable injury.” … See Perez v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 289 Or 295, 299 , 613 P2d 32 (1980). The statutory provision — often referred to as the “aggressor defense” — clearly contemplates a four-part test.

Hammer v. Oregon State Penitentiary

23 Or. App. 743 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 1975

The Board found that petitioner was not wilfully absent for reasons other than health. … In Arnett v.

SAIF Corp. v. Doolittle

140 Or. App. 373 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 1996

SAIF seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, contending that the Board erred in calculating claimant’s unscheduled permanent partial disability, because it did not use the Dictionary of Occupational Titles … Until the Board has resolved them, and has explained how its findings lead to its conclusion, we are unable to review its order. Furnish v. Montavilla Lumber Co., 124 Or App 622, 625 , 863 P2d 524 (1993).

City of La Grande v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 924

51 Or. App. 403 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 30, 1981

The City of La Grande appeals from an order of the Employment Relations Board (ERB), holding that the city committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with the representative of the city’s firefighters pursuant … The city’s challenge to the merits of ERB’s decision is based on arguments, with some insubstantial variations, which this court has previously rejected (see, e.g., Medford Firefighters Assn. v.

Moore v. Commodore Corp.

55 Or. App. 480 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 6, 1982

Claimant appeals an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) affirming the referee’s order which affirmed the denials issued by Truckers Insurance Company (Truckers) and Insurance Company of North America (INA) and … Hewes v. SAIF, 36 Or App 91, 96 , 583 P2d 576 (1978); see Silsby v. SAIF, supra, 39 Or App at 562 . Here, more than 60 days elapsed after claimant had filed her claim.

State v. Roberts

295 Or. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 16, 2019

ORS 163.205(1)(b)(D) ; State v. Browning , 282 Or. … Kate Brown).

Edge v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.

70 Or. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 10, 1984

The Board affirmed. On the first appeal to this court, we reversed, holding that claimant had established the compensability of his condition. Edge v. Jeld-Wen, 52 Or App 725 , 629 P2d 841 (1981). … Morris v. Denny’s, 50 Or App 533 , 623 P2d 1118 (1981); Butcher v. SAIF, 45 Or App 313 , 608 P2d 575 (1980).

State v. Edwards

149 Or. App. 702 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 10, 1997

The affidavit described the subject premises as “a wood structure house, brown in color, and a barn located adjacent to the house, which is also brown in color. … See State v. Moylett, 313 Or 540, 545 , 836 P2d 1329 (1992). Here, however, it appears that the two merge. In State v.

State v. Lovette

145 Or. App. 317 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1996

The issue in this case is the same as that addressed in State v. … State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990); see also State v. Montez, 324 Or 343, 357 , 927 P2d 64 (1996).

Ford v. SAIF Corp.

71 Or. App. 825 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 1985

The Board affirmed the referee without opinion. Claimant assigns as error that the Board affirmed the referee’s ruling that the claim was barred as untimely filed. Claimant argues that neither Dr. Korn nor Dr. … See Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser, 288 Or 51, 55 , 602 P2d 268 (1979).