Case law

Citizens' Utility Board v. Oregon Public Utility Commission

128 Or. App. 650 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 29, 1994

See Beckman Industries, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F2d 470 (9th Cir 1992); Farmers Ins. v. Hansen, 46 Or App 377 , 611 P2d 696 (1980). … See Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone v. Katz, supra.

Rodriguez v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

187 Or. App. 282 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 17, 2003

Dept. v. … Bennett v.

Papadopoulos v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education

48 Or. App. 739 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 1980

On remand after our previous decision in this case (Papadopoulos v. … remand the circuit court will explore and, if necessary, hear evidence on the remedy issue. *** ****** "In summary, we hold: (1) The notice of termination of employment petitioner received was too tardy, *742 under the Board

Day v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

184 Or. App. 409 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 23, 2002

The board ruled that it had authority to require six months of post-release supervision under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bollinger v. Board of Parole, 329 Or 505 , 992 P2d 445 (1999), and denied relief. … State v. Isom, 313 Or 391 , 837 P2d 491 (1992).

Taylor v. Multnomah County Deputy Sheriff's Retirement Board

11 Or. App. 488 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 1972

Petitioner relies on Adams v. … Cases such as Adams v.

Lovelace v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

183 Or. App. 376 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 14, 2002

Lovelace v. Board of Parole (A109609), 183 Or App 283 , 51 P3d 1269 (2002).

Coleman v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

144 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 13, 1996

PER CURIAM Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision establishing conditions of post-prison supervision. Most of his arguments are resolved by our decisions in Schuch v. … Board of Parole, 139 Or App 327 , 912 P2d 403 , rev den 324 Or 78 (1996), and Gress v. Board of Parole, 143 Or App 7 , 924 P2d 329 , mod on recons 144 Or App 375 , 927 P2d 138 (1996).

Kirsch v. Department of Consumer & Business Services

249 Or. App. 611 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 9, 2012

See Coffey v. … See also Olsen v.

Wantowski v. Crown Cork & Seal

164 Or. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 24, 1999

We reached the same conclusion in a slightly different context in Brown v. A-Dec, Inc., 154 Or App 244 , 961 P2d 280 (1998). … Brown, 154 Or App at 248 . Claimant acknowledges Brown , but argues that it was incorrectly decided and urges us to reconsider it.

Henderson v. Public Employees Retirement Board

196 Or. App. 509 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 2004

We disagree that the board imposed that burden on her. … See Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P2d 119 (1994) (agency interpretation of its own rules is entitled to deference).

Severy v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

224 Or. App. 176 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 2008

Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Martinez v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

242 Or. App. 176 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 13, 2011

Submitted on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court March 21, Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.

Wilson v. Board of Parole

322 Or. App. 773 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 23, 2022

Affirmed. 774 Wilson v. Board of Parole TOOKEY, P. J. … See State v. Link, 367 Or 625, 659, 482 P3d 28 (2021) (“[W]e conclude that the Miller [v.

Sopher v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

233 Or. App. 178 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 6, 2010

Sopher v. Board of Parole, 197 Or App 118, 119 , 103 P3d 683 (2005), rev den (June 13, 2006). … Telephone Co. v.

Himes v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

221 Or. App. 386 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 30, 2008

Citing Megdal v. … See Larsen v.

Thomas Creek Lumber & Log Co. v. Board of Forestry

188 Or. App. 10 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 29, 2003

Therefore, it is an inexact term, and the board’s interpretation of it is reviewed as a matter of law, Coast Security Mortgage Corp. v. … See, e.g., Fister v.

Petro v. EMP. DIV., DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES

32 Or. App. 17 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 16, 1978

Bird v. Employment Division, 22 Or App 385 , 539 P2d 668 (1975); Brown v. Employment Division, 22 Or App 382 , 539 P2d 666 (1975); Henderson v. Employment Division, 22 Or App 378 , 539 P2d 665 (1975); Evjen v. … In Brown and Bird , the referees ruled against the claimants and the Board affirmed.

Easton v. SAIF Corp.

264 Or. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 2, 2014

ORS 656.298(7); ORS 183.482(7), (8); Hopkins v. Kobos Co., 186 Or App 273 , 62 P3d 870 (2003). In SAIF v. … v.

Cochran v. Board of Psychologist Examiners

171 Or. App. 324 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 2000

The Board’s opinion, however, does not identity the standard it employed in reaching that conclusion, nor does it set out the evidence in the record that supports its conclusion. See Cochran v. … An agency, however, may not “ ‘use its special knowledge as a substitute for evidence presented at a hearing.’ ” Drew v. PSRB, 322 Or 491, 498 , 909 P2d 1211 (1996) (quoting and adopting a statement from Rolfe v.

Sopher v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

197 Or. App. 118 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 12, 2005

By order, we denied the motion to dismiss, citing our decision in Engweiler v. Board of Parole, 170 Or App 653 , 13 P3d 1009 (2000). On our own motion, we reconsider our order denying the motion to dismiss. … For the reasons stated in Engweiler v. Board of Parole, 197 Or App 43 , 103 P3d 1201 (2005), we now grant the board’s motion. Petition for judicial review dismissed.