Case law

Laing v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

232 Or. App. 506 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 2009

Petitioner argues, however, that neither the legislature nor this court’s interpretation of the board’s authorizing statutes permits the board to thus “extend” the time imposed by the trial court. See Romanov v. … See, e.g., Corey v.

Dixon v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

257 Or. App. 273 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 2013

See Ayres v. … Salosha, Inc. v. Lane County, 201 Or App 138, 143 , 117 P3d 1047 (2005); see Simpson v.

Voelz v. BOARD OF ENGINEERING EXAMINERS, ETC.

37 Or. App. 113 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 14, 1978

We find the Board’s rationale to be adequate for the conclusion. McCann v. OLCC, 27 Or App 487, 493-95 , 556 P2d 973 (1976), rev den (1977). … We held in Stacey v. Board of Accountancy, 26 Or App 541, 544 , 553 P2d 1074 , rev den (1976), that we give weight to the expertise of the Board in evaluating the quality of its licensees.

Cyrus v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES

226 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 18, 2009

See PGE v. … See Houston v.

Fleming v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

225 Or. App. 578 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 2009

In Severy v. … After Roy, the Supreme Court decided Engweiler v. Board of Parole, 343 Or 536 , 175 P3d 408 (2007).

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry

131 Or. App. 552 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 7, 1994

In Boise Cascade Corp. v. … A similar jurisdictional question was addressed at length and resolved in Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry (A79626), supra.

Smith v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

250 Or. App. 345 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 6, 2012

Tenants v. State Bd. High. … It is essentially labeled as such and explains the board’s hearing procedures and requirements. Cf. Kessler v. OSCI, 26 Or App 271, 274 , 552 P2d 589 (1976), overruled on other grounds by Rutherford v.

Dam v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

258 Or. App. 39 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 14, 2013

Petitioner, who is serving dangerous offender sentences on 15 counts of first-degree robbery, seeks judicial review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the board), ORS 144.335(1), (3), contending … Petitioner contends that the board erred in relying on a psychological evaluation that was based on erroneous information. We agree with petitioner and therefore reverse and remand the board’s order.

Criminal Justice Reform Clinic v. Board of Parole

313 Or. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 28, 2021

Engweiler v. … Engweiler v. Board of Parole, 343 Or 536, 542 n 5, 175 P3d 408 (2007). 594 Criminal Justice Reform Clinic v. Board of Parole hearing.

Gambee v. Oregon Medical Board

261 Or. App. 169 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 2014

board orders. … ORS 183.482(8)(c); see Spray v.

Vandever v. State Board of Higher Education

8 Or. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 27, 1971

Co. v. Lincoln Co., 232 Or 540 , 376 P2d 422 (1962). … State v. Young, 74 Or 399 , 145 P 647 (1915).

Huesties v. Board On Police Standards & Training

95 Or. App. 17 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 1989

Petitioner seeks review of a Board on Police Standards and Training (BPST) order revoking his basic and intermediate police certificates. … OAR 259-10-055(21) provides, in relevant part: “(a) Grounds for Revocation: The Board may deny or revoke the certification of any officer after written notice, and a hearing, if requested, based upon a finding that the officer

Mitchell v. Board of Parole

126 Or. App. 267 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 2, 1994

Flowers v. Board of Parole, 124 Or App 331 , 862 P2d 1312 (1993).

Kleikamp v. Board of Commissioners of Yamhill County

301 Or. App. 275 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 11, 2019

Friends of Yamhill County, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners, 351 Or 219, 229 n 7, 264 P3d 1265 (2011). … Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 237 Or App 149, 153 n 3, 238 P3d 1016 (2010), aff’d, 351 Or 219, 264 P3d 1265 (2011).

Einstein v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

226 Or. App. 39 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 18, 2009

Einstein v. PSRB, 330 Or 121, 127 , 998 P2d 654 (2000). “Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” … Id. at 128 n 4 (noting that PSRB is not required to accept testimony without considering the entire record); Martin v.

Wilson v. Board of Parole

107 Or. App. 378 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 1991

PER CURIAM Petitioner seeks review of a Board of Parole order setting his parole release date. He argues that the Board considered the wrong matrix range in deciding not to overrule his minimum sentence. … It also acknowledges that the Board was required to consider the appropriate matrix range in determining whether a minimum sentence should be overridden. See Howard v.

Lofft v. State Board of Higher Education

89 Or. App. 614 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 24, 1988

Maher v. Gagne, 448 US 122, 133 , 100 S Ct 2570 , 65 L Ed 2d 653 (1980). In Rogers v. … Maher v.

Simpson v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

237 Or. App. 661 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 2010

Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 147, 157 , 957 P2d 1210 (1998); see also City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or 266, 271-72 , 639 P2d 90 (1981). … However, the board does not contradict that assertion, and we accept it as true for purposes of our analysis. 4 See, e.g., United States v. T.

Akers v. Board of Parole

126 Or. App. 265 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 2, 1994

He also challenges the refusal of the Board to disclose to him a letter it considered in imposing the condition. The withholding of the letter was not error. Flowers v. … Board of Parole, 124 Or App 331 , 862 P2d 1312 (1993). Affirmed.

Fillinger v. Boeing Co. (In re Fillinger)

290 Or. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 2018

SAIF v. Strubel , 161 Or. … The litigation of this case has been somewhat complicated by the fact that, at the time the board issued its order, our opinion in Brown v. SAIF , 262 Or. App. 640 , 325 P.3d 834 (2014), controlled the analysis.