Case law

Bailey v. Public Employees Retirement Board

228 Or. App. 300 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 2009

Petitioner seeks review of a final order of the Public Employees Retirement Board (PERB) that rejected her claim that she was entitled to receive credit toward retirement benefits for service as a public employee at Oregon … Oregon Nurses Association v. Oregon Health & Science University, 19 PECBR 696 (2002).

Phillips v. State Board of Higher Education

7 Or. App. 588 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 1971

Bay v. State Board of Education, 233 Or 601 , 378 P2d 558 , 96 ALR2d 529 (1963). … The Board’s order was properly reversed by the circuit court. Affirmed. ① This is what the court held the same language meant in a similar situation presented in Whoriskey v.

Meriweather v. State Board of Parole

99 Or. App. 373 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 8, 1989

He had sought review of an earlier order, and we reversed and remanded, because the Board of Parole might have applied the wrong rule. Meriweather v. Board of Parole, 97 Or App 212 , 775 P2d 340 (1989). … Consequently, the motion to dismiss is denied, and the order is reversed and remanded for reconsideration in the light of Meriweather v. Board of Parole, supra.

Brown v. Travelodge of Oregon, Inc.

51 Or. App. 475 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 30, 1981

See Castor v. Erlandson, 277 Or 147 , 560 P2d 267 (1977); Barbour v. Peck, 44 Or App 363 , 606 P2d 628 (1980). Affirmed.

Barclay v. State Board of Education

244 Or. 294 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1966

School Dist. 7 v. Weissenfluh, 1963, 236 Or 165, 172 , 387 P2d 567 . In no event could the allegation of the petition establish arbitrary action by the Board. In Nicklaus v. … School Dist. 7 v. Weissenfluh, supra, 236 Or at 171 ; Mohr v. State Board of Education, 1964, 236 Or 398 , 388 P2d 463 .

LEVEQUE v. Board of Medical Examiners

204 Or. App. 779 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 15, 2006

App. 779 LEVEQUE v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS. Oregon Court of Appeals. March 15, 2006. Case affirmed without opinion.

Smith v. Veterinary Medical Examining Board

175 Or. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 11, 2001

We turn first to the Board’s argument that the record was not closed before the Brown letter was submitted. … Nonetheless, the Board considered the letter in its fact-finding capacity even though it was not part of the record and the record was not reopened for its receipt. In Groshong v.

Miller v. Board of Psychologist Examiners

193 Or. App. 715 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 2004

Spray v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 50 Or App 311, 318 , 624 P2d 125 , modified on recons, 51 Or App 773 , 627 P2d 25 , rev den, 291 Or 117 (1981); accord Board of Medical Examiners v. … Sun Ray Dairy v. OLCC, 16 Or App 63, 74 , 517 P2d 289 (1973). Further, the text of a rule does not stand in isolation; context matters, particularly other parts of the same regulatory scheme.

Wilson v. State Board of Parole

304 Or. 480 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1987

State v. Wilson, 35 Or App 181 , 581 P2d 106 (1978). This court denied review. The Court of Appeals’ opinion in part said: “Defendant’s second assignment concerns his sentence. … The balance of the record is made up of documents reciting actions taken by the Board. For the most part these documents are “Board Action Forms” (BAF). See Anderson v. Board of Parole, 303 Or 618 , 740 P2d 760 (1987).

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.

State v. Brown

341 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 4, 2025

State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63, 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995). … See State v.

Board of Medical Examiners v. Cusick

234 Or. 533 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1963

Defendant filed his application with the board. On October 6, 1960 he appeared before the board and requested reinstatement. … pleadings filed by the board.

McGowan v. Psychiatric Security Review Board

324 Or. 17 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1996

The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in the light of Drew v. PSRB, 322 Or 491 , 909 P2d 211 (1996).

Carrillo v. SAIF

310 Or. App. 8 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 17, 2021

SAIF, 291 Or App 589, 420 P3d 636 (2018) (Carrillo I), we remanded the board’s order for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Brown v. … The board did not explicitly resolve that issue, because it concluded, relying on this court’s opinion in Brown 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.

City of Hermiston v. Employment Relations Board

280 Or. 291 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1977

It appears that the Court of Appeals overlooked its own prior conclusion on the identical point in Klamath County v. Laborers Inter. … See 29 USC §160 (e), (f); American Fed. of Labor v.

Mentula v. State Land Board

244 Or. 229 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1966

In Ljubich v. … In addition, Santovincenzo v.

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).

Angelos v. State Board of Dental Examiners

244 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 18, 1966

Semler v. Oregon Dental Examiners, 148 Or 50 , 34 P2d 311 (1934), affirmed 294 US 608 , 55 S Ct 570 , 79 L Ed 1086 (1935). … We believe that the legislative grant of authority is clear in the case at bar, and that it was within the power of the Board to promulgate the rule which is here under attack. See Phelps Dodge Corp. v.

Hansen v. Board of Commissioners

278 Or. App. 794 · Benton County Circuit Court, Oregon · Jun 15, 2016

See generally Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 278 Or App 472, 474-75 , 377 P3d 670 (2016) (summarizing Measure 37 regulatory scheme). … In making that determination, the board applied the common law vested right test articulated by the Supreme Court in Clackamas Co. v. Holmes, 265 Or 193, 198-99 , 508 P2d 190 (1973).