Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersOR

10,000+ results

0.65s

  • Christensen v. Carter

    261 Or. App. 133 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 20, 2014

    See ORAP 5.40(8)(c); Brown v. Roach, 249 Or App 579, 580 , 277 P3d 628 (2012). … Brown, 249 Or App at 586 .

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Evans v. SAIF Corp.

    285 Or. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 10, 2017

    See ORS 656.005(7)(a)(B); ORS 656.262(6)(c); Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241, 243 , 391 P3d 773 (2017) (explaining the nature of a “combined condition” claim for workers’ compensation benefits). … decision in Brown v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Hughes

    197 Or. App. 553 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 16, 2005

    Our only other decision interpreting ORS 656.390 is Winters v. … Brown v. Argonaut Insurance Company, 93 Or App 588, 591 , 763 P2d 408 (1988). At issue in Brown was a denial based on the lack of supporting medical evidence.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Downs v. Board of Parole

    345 Or. App. 610 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 10, 2025

    Reviewing for “legal error and substantial evi- dence[ ] (including substantial reason),” Morrison v. … No amended reply brief was filed by petitioner and this case was scheduled for submission. 612 Downs v.

    Cited 1 timesUnpublished
  • Havice v. SAIF Corp.

    80 Or. App. 448 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 23, 1986

    However, as we have already noted, there are several references to low back pain in the reports, although, as Brown stated, they may not be indicative of a disc herniation. … See Grable v. Weyerhaeuser Company, 291 Or 387 , 631 P2d 768 (1981). We affirm the Board’s denial of interim compensation, attorney fees and penalties.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Redmond School District No. 2J v. Public Employe Relations Board

    19 Or. App. 212 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 14, 1974

    The Redmond School District appeals from an order of the Public Employe Relations Board (PERB) directing the School District to reopen labor negotiations with the Redmond Education Association prior to the termination date

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Oregon Ass'n of Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners

    260 Or. App. 676 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 23, 2014

    See State v. … State v. Perry, 336 Or 49, 53 , 77 P3d 313 (2003); see also Hopkins v.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • SAIF v. Coria

    371 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 20, 2023

    Brown v. Argonaut [Insurance Company], 93 Or App 588, 591[, 763 P2d 408] (1988).” The board resolved the penalty issue in two sen- tences, followed by citations to three of its own cases: Dustin E. … Hughes, 197 Or App 553, 558, 106 P3d 687, rev den, 338 Or 488 (2005) (citing Brown, 93 Or App at 591).

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Hutton v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd.

    293 Or. App. 804 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 29, 2018

    Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion text
  • Baize v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

    206 Or. App. 548 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 28, 2006

    The board argues that it was not obligated to conduct the aggravated murder review hearing in compliance with the APA requirements for the conduct of contested case hearings. In Larsen v. … Since the filing of the briefs in this case, we decided that issue adversely to petitioner in Davis v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Escalderon v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

    229 Or. App. 174 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 17, 2009

    *175 PER CURIAM Petitioner seeks reconsideration of our decision in Escalderon v. … Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 227 Or App 506 , 206 P3d 286 (2009), asserting that we improperly awarded costs to respondent. We allow reconsideration and, based on Blacknall v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Guzek v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

    222 Or. App. 81 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 20, 2008

    The board set a new parole consideration date of February 28, 2007. Petitioner sought administrative review of the board’s order, and the board denied relief. … The statute and rule do not require any findings when the board decides not to establish a release date. We interpreted ORS 144.228 and OAR 255-036-0005 to the same effect in Colby v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Castillo v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

    203 Or. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 4, 2006

    V. L. Y. v. Board of Parole, 338 Or 44 , 106 P3d 145 (2005).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • King v. Portland Civil Serv. Bd.

    362 Or. 545 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 1, 2018

    Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion text
  • Krause v. Southern Pacific Co.

    135 Or. 310 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1931

    As to the liability of the city, the rule is thus stated in Board of Councilmen of the City of Frankfort v. … W. 1015 ) or on top of a fire truck (Board of Councilmen v. Bowen’s Adm’x, supra) are not in point.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Martinez v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

    230 Or. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 5, 2009

    App. 245 Ernest Raymond MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. A133672. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted July 2, 2009. Decided August 5, 2009. Walter J. … Fleming v. Board of Parole, 225 Or.App. 578 , 202 P.3d 209 , rev. allowed, 346 Or. 361 , 211 P.3d 930 (2009).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Guzek v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

    201 Or. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 8, 2005

    See Anderson v. … Under those circumstances, we must remand for the board to reconsider its decision. See, e.g., Smith v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Gray v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

    207 Or. App. 530 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2006

    Larsen v. Board of Parole, 206 Or App 353 , 138 P3d 16 (2006).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Brusco Towboat Co. v. State ex rel. State Land Board

    31 Or. App. 491 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 17, 1977

    First, the Board argues that the estoppel principles which we held limit the Board’s power to revoke the riparian license to erect navigational structures should not operate in favor of the plaintiff port districts and against … Co. v. City of Portland, 14 Or 188, 193 , 12 P 265 , 58 Am R 299 (1886), and for similar reasons are entitled to the protection of the doctrine of estoppel in this setting.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Enyart v. Merrick

    148 Or. 321 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1934

    In support of this contention defendant-respondent cites Mascall v. Murray, 76 Or. 637 ( 149 P. 517 ). … Stanley v. Luse, 36 Or. 25, 32 ( 58 P. 75 ). In the case of Briggs v. Spaulding, 141 U. S. 132 ( 11 S. Ct. 924 , 35 L. Ed. 962 ), the United States Supreme Court by a divided court, speaking through the late Mr.

    Cited 8 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.