Case law

Maney v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

210 Or. App. 351 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 27, 2006

The Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision conducted an aggravated murder review hearing. … Petitioner now seeks judicial review, arguing that the board erred in failing to conduct the hearing in accordance with the contested case procedures required by ORS 163.105(3). The state concedes that, under Larsen v.

Wilcox v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

197 Or. App. 623 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 23, 2005

Finally, the board contends that, consistently with Shelby v. … Bartz v.

Jackson v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

224 Or. App. 171 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 26, 2008

ORS 144.335(1) limits judicial review to final orders of the board. As the Supreme Court explained in Mastriano v. … Board of Parole, 342 Or 684, 686 , 159 P3d 1151 (2007), “a board order denying reopening and reconsideration of an earlier final order is not itself a final order for purposes of judicial review pursuant to ORS 144.335(1)

Peck v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

221 Or. App. 700 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 13, 2008

App. 700 Walter Carl PECK, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. A129393. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted June 27, 2008. Decided August 13, 2008. Irene B. … Cole v. Board of Parole, 220 Or.App. 362 , 186 P.3d 321 (2008).

The Hotspur

12 F. Cas. 562 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 5, 1874

Ed.) 262; Vent v. Osgood, 19 Pick. 572 ; Niekerson v. Easton, 12 Pick. 110 ; Moses v. Stevens, 2 Pick. 334 . … Medbury v. Watrous, 7 Hill, 111 ; Moses v. Stevens, supra.

Mendoza v. SAIF Corp.

123 Or. App. 349 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 22, 1993

Brown v. EBI Companies, 289 Or 455, 458 , 616 P2d 457 (1980); Seker-mestrovich v. SAIF, 280 Or 723, 727 , 573 P2d 275 (1977); Anderson v. … See also EBI Companies v. Lorence, 72 Or App 75 , 695 P2d 61 , rev den 299 Or 118 (1985). 2 In Brown v.

Barton v. School District No. 2

77 Or. 30 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1915

As tending to support plaintiff’s contention, his counsel cite School District v. Allen, 83 Ark. 491 ( 104 S. W. 172 ); Faulk v. McCartney, 42 Kan. 695 ( 22 Pac. 712 ); Brown v. School District, 1 Kan. … App. 530 ( 40 Pac. 826 ); Holloway v. Ogden School District, 62 Mich. 153 ( 28 N. W. 764 ); Dolan v. Joint School District, 80 Wis. 155 ( 49 N. W. 960 ); Splaine v. School District, 20 Wash. 74 ( 54 Pac. 766 ).

Board of Canal & Locks Commissioners v. Willamette Transportation & Locks Co.

6 Or. 219 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1877

Co. v. State of Illinois, 56 Ill. 565 .) … In Munn & Scott v. The State of Illinois, Mr.

In Re Harris v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education

145 Or. App. 477 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1996

*478 PER CURIAM Defendant, Oregon State Board of Higher Education (the Board), appeals a circuit court judgment reversing the Board’s order that held that plaintiff did not meet the residency requirements that would qualify … United Citizens v. Oregon Environmental Quality Comm., 104 Or App 51 , 799 P2d 665 (1990), rev den 311 Or 151 (1991).

Al-Wadud v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

346 Or. 257 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 4, 2009

210 P.3d 905 (2009) 346 Or. 257 AL-WADUD v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION. (S057065). Supreme Court of Oregon. June 4, 2009. Petition for review denied.

Pierce v. Board of Parole

345 Or. App. 135 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 19, 2025

Additionally, the substantial evidence standard requires that the board’s orders be based on substantial reason. See Martin v. … to determine 138 Pierce v.

Elliott v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

221 Or. App. 699 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 13, 2008

App. 699 Anthony Blake ELLIOTT, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. A127739. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted June 27, 2008. Decided August 13, 2008. Irene B. … Cole v. Board of Parole, 220 Or.App. 362 , 186 P.3d 321 (2008).

Oregon Funeral Directors Ass'n v. Oregon State Mortuary & Cemetery Board

132 Or. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 4, 1995

We reject the Board’s contention that the test for compliance with the requirements of ORS 183.335(2)(b)(E) is whether petitioners have demonstrated prejudice. The Board’s reliance on Clark v. … Dika v. Dept. of Ins. and Finance, 312 Or 106, 110 , 817 P2d 287 (1991). Relying on Dika v. Dept. of Ins. and Finance, supra, and Troutlodge, Inc. v.

Moret v. Board of Parole

343 Or. App. 600 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 24, 2025

See Tuckenberry v. … ’s statutory authority,” and (3) it would likely have been “futile” for the inmate to raise the issue before the board); see also Jacobs v.

Taylor v. Board of Parole

346 Or. App. 858 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 4, 2026

In her second assignment of error, she contends that the board erred by deferring her next review hearing for three years. We affirm. We review the board’s order for substantial evi- dence and reason. Castro v. … The remainder of petitioner’s arguments on both her first and second assignments of error also do not provide 860 Taylor v. Board of Parole a basis for reversal of the board’s order.

Walker v. Board of Parole

337 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 2024

Crombie v. … Penn v. Board of Parole, 365 Or 607, 635, 451 P3d 589 (2019). See Weems/Roberts v.

Al-Wadud v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

221 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 19, 2008

App. 177 AL-WADUD v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION. Court of Appeals of Oregon. November 19, 2008. Affirmed without opinion.

Barrett v. Board of Parole

336 Or. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 14, 2024

Affirmed. 216 Barrett v. Board of Parole SHORR, P. J. In 1994, petitioner robbed a convenience store and shot and killed the store clerk. State v. … Barrett v. Board of Parole, 332 Or App 463, 466, 549 P3d 12 (2024) (concluding that the board lacked authority under the circumstances to sum and unsum petitioner’s sentences).

Muffett v. State Accident Insurance Fund

58 Or. App. 684 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 1982

The Board refused to remand but agreed to consider the exhibit in its review of the case. 1 Remand by the Board to *687 the referee is a matter of discretion. See Holmes v. … Willamette Industries, 56 Or App 763 , 643 P2d 390 (1982); Brown v. SAIF, 51 Or App 389 , 625 P2d 1351 (1981); Penifold v. SAIF, 49 Or App 1015 , 621 P2d 646 (1980).

Schommer v. Liberty Nw. Ins. Corp. (In re Schommer)

294 Or. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 19, 2018

the board under either ORS 656.382(2) 1 or ORS 656.386(1) ; 2 and (4) further concluded that, because insurer, and not claimant, had initiated the appeal before the board, under Shoulders v. … Brown , 40 Van Natta 879 (1988). On reconsideration, claimant contends that a fee under that statute is mandatory when a claimant prevails on Board review, and asserts that our decision in Brown was wrongly decided.