Case law

Day v. Board of Parole

103 Or. App. 111 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 8, 1990

I dissent for the reasons expressed in Willaby v. Board of Parole, 103 Or App 83, 797 P2d 1050 (1990).

Hancock v. Board of Parole

105 Or. App. 627 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 13, 1991

The Board argues, however, that the “Board’s motivation [for setting petitioner’s parole date] is easily deduced.” … . *629 The Board may be correct in its rationale for its decision, but its explanation does not meet the requirement of ORS 144.135 that the order state the bases for its decision. See Harris v.

Hammond v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp. (In re Comp. of Hammond)

296 Or. App. 241 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 27, 2019

Finally, in a supplemental brief, claimant contends that the Supreme Court's opinion in Brown v. … The board nonetheless reached the correct conclusion that the fracture was not compensable as an initial claim. See Conner v. B & S Logging , 153 Or.

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.

Erickson v. Oregon State Board of Parole

34 Or. App. 323 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 8, 1978

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 US 778 , 93 S Ct 1756 , 36 L Ed 2d 656 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 US 471 , 92 S Ct 2593 , 33 L Ed 2d 484 (1972). … Waltz v.

Rinne v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd.

297 Or. App. 549 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2019

Id. ; see also Castro v. Board of Parole , 232 Or. App. 75 , 85-86, 220 P.3d 772 (2009) ("Our duty is to evaluate the board's logic, not to supply it."). … Drew v.

Erbs v. Board of Parole

93 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 7, 1988

PER CURIAM Petitioner seeks review of final orders of the Board of Parole, dated July 22, 1987, and September 15, 1987, that recalculated his release date. We dismiss the appeal as moot. In Erbs v. … After his release, the Board no longer had authority over petitioner. Erbs v. Board of Parole, supra. Because he is no longer subject to the orders entered by the Board, the issue he raises on review is moot.

Gildroy v. Board of Tax Service Examiners

184 Or. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 2002

Because licensee does not challenge the board’s findings of fact, they are binding on review. Lee v. Appraiser Certification and Licensure Board, 160 Or App 622, 624 , 981 P2d 825 (1999). … See State v. Hart, 329 Or 140, 145-48 , 985 *234 P2d 1260 (1999).

Cabantoy v. Board of Parole

88 Or. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 1987

THIS ACTION TAKEN PER FILE PASS DATED 10/17/1986” discloses that the Board, in the exercise of its discretion, decided not to advance the release date. Under the rule that Anderson v. … Anderson v. Board of Parole, supra. Affirmed. A file pass is a form used in a procedure by which the Board takes action in individual cases without a formal meeting.

Scherzinger v. Portland Custodians Civil Service Board

209 Or. App. 394 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 2006

The district relies on cases such as Ahern v. … See Beldt v.

Jeanes v. Board of Parole

83 Or. App. 410 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 28, 1987

The only issue is whether the Board of Parole (Board) may postpone a parole release date without a hearing. The Board cites OAR 255-50-010(1) as its authority to postpone a parole release date without a hearing. … Miller v. Employment Division, 290 Or 285, 289 , 620 P2d 1377 (1980); Oregon Educ. Ass’n. v. Eugene School Dist. 4J, 53 Or App 722, 727 , 633 P2d 28 (1981).

Thomas v. Board of Accountancy

74 Or. App. 471 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 17, 1985

In Springfield Education Assn. v. … Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist., supra, 290 Or at 223 .

Parmele v. Civil Service Board

53 Or. App. 7 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 1981

By the 1954 resolution, petitioners were accorded "dual status,” a term first coined in Drake v. City of Portland, 172 Or 558 , 143 P2d 213 (1943). … Duncan v. Law Enforcement Council, 37 Or App 119, 123 , 586 P2d 398 (1978), rev den (1979).

Reed v. Board of Parole

21 Or. App. 302 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 5, 1975

Bailleaux v. Cupp, 16 Or App 573 , 520 P2d 483 , Sup Ct review denied (1974); Sterling v. Bd. of Parole, 16 Or App 481 , 519 P2d 1047 , Sup Ct review denied (1974).

Queen v. Board of Parole

16 Or. App. 496 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 4, 1974

Sterling v. Board of Parole, 16 Or App. 481, 519 P2d 1047 (1974),

Sinclair v. Employment Relations Board

28 Or. App. 47 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 17, 1977

Colloquy between counsel and members of the Employment Relations Board indicates that the board members believed that petitioner had been engaged in protected concerted activity, but were still concerned about whether this … Green v. Hayward, 275 Or 693 , 552 P2d 815 (1976); Sunnyside Neighborhood v. Clackamas Co. Comm., 27 Or App 647 , 557 P2d 1375 (1976); McCann v. OLCC, 27 Or App 487 , 556 P2d 973 (1976); Battle Creek Golf Course v.

Weems v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

221 Or. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 2, 2008

Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 147, 157 , 957 P2d 1210 (1998). ORS 183.482(8) provides, in part: “(a) The court may affirm, reverse or remand the order. … See Clinical Research Institute v. Kemper Ins.

Gilbo v. Board of Parole

16 Or. App. 495 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 4, 1974

Sterling v. Board of Parole, 16 Or App 481 , 519 P2d 1047 (1974).

Hall v. Board of Parole

16 Or. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 4, 1974

Sterling v. Board of Parole, 16 Or App 481 , 519 P2d 1047 (1974).

Jones v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

283 Or. App. 650 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 15, 2017

Gordon v. Board of Parole, 343 Or 618, 622 , 175 P3d 461 (2007). … The board also cites Jenkins v.