Case law

Frey v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

152 Or. App. 462 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 1998

See Scott v. Board of Parole, 117 Or App 170, 171 , 843 P2d 959 (1992), rev den 315 Or 643 (1993). … See Troiano v. Board of Parole, 144 Or App 325, 326 , 925 P2d 167 (1996), rev den 324 Or 560 (1997). Affirmed.

Slover v. Oregon State Board of Clinical Social Workers

144 Or. App. 565 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 1996

Assuming that facts alleged in plaintiffs complaint are true, Glubka v. Long, 115 Or App 236, 238 , 837 P2d 553 (1992), we review to determine whether those facts state a claim. Hansen v. … Fleming v. Kids and Kin Head Start, 71 Or App 718, 721 , 693 P2d 1363 (1985); see also Chaney v.

Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America v. Eugene Water & Electric Board

276 Or. App. 228 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 2016

Morrow v. Red Shield Ins. Co., 212 Or App 653, 661 , 159 P3d 384 (2007). … See, e.g., Oregon Southwest, LLC v.

SAIF Corp. v. May

193 Or. App. 515 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 2004

Both parties cite SAIF v. Brown, 177 Or App 113 , 33 P3d 336 (2001). … SAIF argues here, as it did in SAIF v.

Meadows v. Schiedler

143 Or. App. 213 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 28, 1996

See Penrod / Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21 , 581 P2d 934 (1978) (tracing historical development of habeas corpus in Oregon). Use of the writ has evolved beyond cases challenging the judgment of *217 conviction, 3 Mueller v. … See Bedell v.

Fleming v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

346 Or. 361 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2009

211 P.3d 930 (2009) 346 Or. 361 FLEMING v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION. (S057245). Supreme Court of Oregon. June 17, 2009. Petition for review allowed.

Browder v. BOARD OF PAROLE & POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

343 Or. 222 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 4, 2007

168 P.3d 1153 (2007) BROWDER v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION No. S53551. Supreme Court of Oregon. October 4, 2007. Petition for review allowed.

State Ex Rel. Board of Bar Examiners v. Poyntz

152 Or. 592 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1935

No hearing was had, however, by the State Board of Bar Examiners and the petitioner had no opportunity to meet his accusers face to face to refute any charges which might be made against him, although he urged the board to … In fairness to the board, let it be said that no statutory procedure for such hearing was provided.

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Board of County Commissioners

32 Or. App. 413 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 7, 1978

The following excerpts from the Board’s findings provide a focus for the issues raised by petitioners. … We held in Rutherford v.

Board of Railroad Commissioners v. Oregon Railway & Navigation Co.

17 Or. 65 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1888

cognizance, or what would be a lawful order or requirement of the board; nor does any section of it indicate what law the board has cognizance of. … Under this view, the board would be the most important tribunal in the state.

Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald People's Utility District

339 Or. 631 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2005

See PGE v. … In Wasco County P.U.D. v.

Independent Contractors v. Construction Contractors Board

135 Or. App. 556 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 26, 1995

ORS 701.035 provides, in part: “(1) An applicant must qualify as an independent contractor, under ORS 670.600, to register with the board. “(2) The board shall establish two classes of independent contractor registration: … Co-Oper. v.

Lane v. BOARD OF PAROLE & POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

343 Or. 222 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 4, 2007

168 P.3d 1153 (2007) LANE v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION No. S53544. Supreme Court of Oregon. October 4, 2007. Petition for review allowed.

Taylor v. BOARD OF PAROLE & POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

343 Or. 222 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 4, 2007

168 P.3d 1153 (2007) TAYLOR v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION No. S53542. Supreme Court of Oregon. October 4, 2007. Petition for review allowed.

Merrick v. Board of Higher Education

111 Or. App. 414 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 1992

In Merrick v. … Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 449 , 648 P2d 1289 (1982). In the light of respondents’ agreement with petitioner that the rules are valid, an implication that a controversy exists is no longer appropriate.

Sinsel v. Oregon Board of Forestry

134 Or. App. 200 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 1995

It appears that the Board analyzed the issue of compensability under our decision in Mathel v. Josephine County, 122 Or App 424 , 858 P2d 450 (1993). … After the Board’s decision, the Supreme Court reversed our decision in Mathel. 319 Or 235 , 875 P2d 455 (1994).

Alexander v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 3, 2019

No. 3:18-cv-005 10-MK v. ORDER STEVE BROWN, Superintendent, Respondent. MCSHANE, Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. … United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9" Cir. 1988). The Court finds no error and concludes the report is correct. Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 33) is adopted.

Carlock v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners

117 Or. App. 360 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 23, 1992

Noren v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 117 Or App 337 , 843 P2d 1021 (1992).

Allbee v. State Board of Parole

99 Or. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 25, 1989

He seeks review, contending that, by overriding one minimum sentence, the Board necessarily overrode all three and was required to set a new release date. The state concedes error, citing Roof v. … The Board had authority to override only one of the minimum sentences. 1 See Williams v. Board of Parole, 98 Or App 716 , 780 P2d 793 (1989). Petitioner’s remaining contentions do not warrant discussion. Affirmed.

Gilbert v. State Board of Parole

98 Or. App. 53 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 9, 1989

PER CURIAM Petitioner seeks review of a final order of the Board of Parole setting his release date. … Matteson v. Board of Parole, 63 Or App 418 , 664 P2d 434 (1983). The record does not show a constitutional infirmity in any of the four convictions. The Board followed its rule here. Affirmed.