Case law

Citizens' Utility Board v. Public Utility Commission

154 Or. App. 702 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 24, 1998

As we noted in Steele v. … Co. v.

Mendacino v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

287 Or. App. 822 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 20, 2017

Peek v. … Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 200 , 335 P3d 828 (2014) (quoting Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 147, 157 , 957 P2d 1210 (1998)).

Hill v. MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

12 Or. App. 242 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 1973

Archdiocese of Port. v. Co. of Wash., 254 Or 77, 86 , 458 P2d 682 (1969); Bissell v. Bd. of Wash. County Comrs., 12 Or App 174 , 506 P2d 499 (1973). … Archdiocese of Port. v. Co. of Wash., supra at 84-85. We note that there is an apparent discrepancy *250 between the conclusion we reach here and the language of Erickson v.

Sutton v. Public Employes' Retirement Board

74 Or. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 31, 1985

PER CURIAM Petitioners seek judicial review of the Public Employes’ Retirement Board’s order on reconsideration, which cancelled their disability retirement allowances. ORS 237.195(1).

Stewart v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

125 Or. App. 576 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 1993

PER CURIAM Petitioner seeks review of a February 24,1992, Psychiatric Security Review Board order denying him conditional release. We affirm. … See Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402 , 848 P2d 1194 (1993). We expressly do not decide petitioner’s claim that his condition does not constitute a mental disease. Affirmed.

Edney v. Columbia County Board of Commissioners

117 Or. App. 385 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 1992

See Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500 , 533 P2d 772 (1975). … See, e.g., *389 Campbell v. Bd. of Commissioners, 107 Or App 611 , 813 P2d 1074 (1991). We agree with defendants that the trial court lacked the authority to consider the merits of the case or to issue the writ.

Moats v. Board of Barbers & Hairdressers

100 Or. App. 653 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 7, 1990

PER CURIAM Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers. The Board assessed a civil penalty against her for practicing manicure services without a license, in violation of ORS 690.015(1). … Petitioner argues, the state concedes, and we agree that the Board improperly increased the amount of the civil penalty from $300, which the hearings officer recommended, to $500.

Caster v. State Board of Parole

58 Or. App. 380 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 28, 1982

However, the Board in its brief states: «* * * [Although] not raised by petitioner, it is * * * apparent that the Board has failed to schedule parole release ‘until a specified future date’ as required by ORS 144.125(3).” … Pursuant to this concession, the case is remanded to the Board to set a new release date.

Scherzinger v. Portland Custodians Civil Service Board

196 Or. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 2004

See Shuler v. … .”); see also State v.

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry

186 Or. App. 291 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 2003

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry (A79626), 131 Or App 538 , 886 P2d 1033 (1994) (Boise II). … In Rogers v.

Brown v. Highberger

332 Or. App. 767 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 30, 2024

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STEPHEN LEE BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. … Affirmed. 768 Brown v. Highberger LAGESEN, C. J. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment denying habeas corpus relief.

Martin v. Brown

334 Or. App. 299 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 7, 2024

Affirmed. 300 Martin v. Brown HELLMAN, J. Petitioner appeals from a judgment that denied her petition for post-conviction relief. … Trujillo v. Maass, 312 Or 431, 435, 822 P2d 703 (1991).

Venables v. Brown

331 Or. App. 768 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 2024

OAR 291-063-0120(2)(d). 770 Venables v. Brown Petitioner then initiated the instant post-conviction proceedings. … ); see also Dept. of Human Services v.

Stuckrath v. Brown

332 Or. App. 403 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 2024

NICHOLE BROWN, Superintendent, Coffee Creek Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent. … Affirmed. 404 Stuckrath v. Brown TOOKEY, P. J.

State v. Brown

333 Or. App. 297 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 20, 2024

Affirmed. 298 State v. Brown SHORR, P. J. … See State v.

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry

131 Or. App. 538 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 7, 1994

Doyle v. … Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry (A78968), 131 Or App 552 , 886 P2d 1041 (1994).

Messer v. Polk County District Boundary Board

58 Or. App. 46 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 23, 1982

The Board contends that petitioners have the burden to establish the criteria set out in ORS 330.090(2) and that the Board could have concluded that petitioners had not met that burden. See Fed. of Seafood Hrvstrs. v. … Jurgenson v. Union County Court, 42 Or App 505 , 600 P2d 1241 (1979) (denial of zone change is supported by substantial evidence unless court can say proponent met burden of proof as a matter of law).

Castro v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

232 Or. App. 75 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 18, 2009

Board of Parole, 327 Or 147, 157 , 957 P2d 1210 (1998); Weems v. Board of Parole, 221 Or App 70, 74 , 190 P3d 381 (2008), rev allowed, 346 Or 115 (2009). … Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 206 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). According to the board, this is such a case.

Brausen v. Brown

332 Or. App. 765 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 30, 2024

Affirmed. 766 Brausen v. Brown LAGESEN, C. J. Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying post- conviction relief. … See, e.g., State v. Yother, 310 Or App 563, 484 P3d 1098 (2021) (deciding matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v.

Desler v. LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

27 Or. App. 709 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 13, 1976

In Green v. … Contrary to the thrust of petitioners’ second contention, there is evidence in the record supporting the board’s finding. Petitioners’ third contention relates to the adequacy of the board’s findings. In Kristensen v.