Case law

Randol v. Newberg Public School Board

23 Or. App. 425 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 24, 1975

In this writ of review proceeding the circuit court affirmed the decision of the Board. … In Neuhaus v.

Beiswenger v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

157 Or. App. 192 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 18, 1998

In support of the point, PSRB refers to Rolfe v. PSRB, 53 Or App 941 , 633 P2d 846 , rev den 292 Or 334 (1981), and Cochenour v. PSRB, 47 Or App 1097 , 615 P2d 1155 (1980). … Cook v.

Pedro v. SAIF

313 Or. App. 34 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2021

We agree that substantial evidence does not support the board’s finding that claimant’s L4-5 disc protrusion is part of a combined condition within the meaning of ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B), as interpreted in Brown v. … See Hopkins v.

Cook v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

123 Or. App. 532 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 6, 1993

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB) that continues her commitment. We reverse and remand. … Hodgin v. PSRB, 113 Or App 580, 584 , 833 P2d 351 (1992).

Strecker v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

120 Or. App. 178 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 1993

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB) that continues his commitment. In Strecker v. … However, PSRB has authority to promulgate “such interpretive rules as the board deems necessary or appropriate to carry out its statutory responsibilities.” ORS 161.387(1).

Bahrenfus v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

124 Or. App. 320 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 3, 1993

, subject to those supervisory orders of the board that are in the best interests of justice, the protection of society and the welfare of the person.” … Lovette v. PSRB, 102 Or App 548 , 795 P2d 587 , rev den 310 Or 547 (1990). PSRB based its finding that petitioner could not be adequately controlled in the community on the testimony of Russell and Schwartz.

Rios v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

176 Or. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 2001

PER CURIAM Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB), upon remand to the Board from the Supreme Court, Rios v. … cannot constitute a “mental disease or defect” for purposes of ORS 161.341(4), in that those conditions are excluded by ORS 161.295(2) 1 We reject that argument for the reasons stated in the en banc lead opinion in Hanson v.

Patin v. State Board of Parole

99 Or. App. 207 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 25, 1989

PER CURIAM Petitioner appeals a Board of Parole order that states, in part: “DISCHARGE OF PAROLE PRIOR TO SENTENCE EXPIRATION DATE IS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF PAROLE, FOLLOWING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FROM … In this court, the Board concedes 1 that the sentencing court’s recommendation was not a valid restitution order and that, therefore, the Board lacked authority to order restitution. See State v.

Kim v. Brown

339 Or. App. 158 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 19, 2025

See Lee v. … Cunningham v.

Perez v. State Board of Parole

102 Or. App. 117 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 6, 1990

*118 PER CURIAM Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Parole. By a previous order, the Board had established a parole release date for petitioner. … He did not seek judicial review of that order but requested “administrative review of the decision by the Board.”

Edney v. Columbia County Board of Commissioners

119 Or. App. 6 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 31, 1993

. *10 They rely on Simon v. Board of Co. … However, the clear point of our reasoning in Simon v. Board of Co. Comm, of Marion Co., supra, and Bigej Enterprises v.

Bryson v. Public Employes Retirement Board

45 Or. App. 27 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 1980

See Taylor v. Mult. Dep. Sher. Ret. Bd., 265 Or 445 , 510 P2d 339 (1973). The question is: what was the most advantageous benefit in existence during petitioner’s service? … The Board computed petitioner’s retirement benefits under the most favorable rate and determined it to be $1,376.58 per month. Finding no error of substance in the Board’s determination, we affirm its order. Affirmed.

Ashley v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

53 Or. App. 333 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 3, 1981

Petitioner appeals an order of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB). … Brown, 478 F2d 606, 610, 155 ADC 402 (DC Cir 1973); Bolton v. Harris, 395 F2d 642, 651, 130 ADC 1 (DC Cir 1968); State v. Alto, 589 P2d 402, 406 (Alaska 1979); Hill v.

Patton v. State Board of Higher Education

56 Or. App. 714 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 5, 1982

Co. v. Conn Organ, 40 Or App 785, 791 , 596 P2d 605 , rev den 287 Or 507 (1979). Our appellate jurisdiction is limited and springs from statute. Smallwood v. Erlandson, 281 Or 699, 701 , 576 P2d 374 (1978).

Hodgin v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

127 Or. App. 587 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 1994

Martin v. PSRB, 312 Or 157 ; 167, 818 P2d 1264 (1991). … Cook v. PSRB, supra, 123 Or App at 535 ; Hodgin v. PSRB, 113 Or App 580, 583-84 , 833 P2d 351 (1992).

Papadopoulos v. State Board of Higher Education

8 Or. App. 445 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 1972

Defendants are the State Board of Higher Education, which has administrative responsibility over Oregon State University, ORS 351.060(1), and the Board’s chancellor. … (See Runyon v. Board etc. of Cal., 26 Cal. App.2d 183, 185 [ 79 P.2d 101 ] [letters and documents in possession of parole board]; Chronicle Publishing Co. v.

Reynolds v. State Board of Naturopathic Examiners

80 Or. App. 438 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 23, 1986

He alleged that, under the authority of that statute, the State Board of Naturopathic Examiners forbids naturopaths to give injections of vitamins, minerals and non-poisonous plant substances; that the State Board of Pharmacy … Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 449 , 648 P2d 1289 (1982). Here, the parties have adverse legal interests in the determination that plaintiff seeks. The facts are not hypothetical.

Flury v. Land Use Board of Appeals

50 Or. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 1981

Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59 , 586 P2d 367 (1978).” While Meyer v. … Meeker v. Board of Commissioners, 287 Or 665, 674 , 601 P2d 804 (1979); Jurgenson v. Union County Court, 42 Or App 505, 513 , 600 P2d 1241 (1979).

Genova v. Oregon Veterinary Medical Examining Board

282 Or. App. 234 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 16, 2016

However, in its order, the board failed to adequately address why it rejected petitioner’s argument. See Becklin v. … Accordingly, we must reverse and remand the board’s order for further explanation of its conclusion. Cf. Cochran v.

Adams v. Board of Medical Examiners

170 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 2000

The principal authority that petitioner offers for that proposition is Lawrence v. … As the Supreme Court recognized in Compton v.