Case law

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.

Brown v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 15, 2016

Wihtol I v. Dept. of Rev., 21 OTR 260, 267–68 (2013); TCR-MD 16. … See Biss v. Dept. of.

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.

Wilcox v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

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

In Frey v. … See also Rickman v.

Clardy v. Board of Parole

341 Or. App. 211 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 4, 2025

We review a board order “for legal error, substantial evidence, and substantial reason.” Bell v. Board of Parole, 283 Or App 711, 713, 391 P3d 907, rev den, 361 Or 645 (2017). … Guzek v. Board of Parole, 325 Or App 795, 804, 530 P3d 510, rev den, 371 Or 476 (2023).

EBI Companies v. Lorence

72 Or. App. 75 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 6, 1985

In Sekermestrovich v. … In Brown v. EBI Companies, 289 Or 455 , 616 P2d 457 (1980), the claimant telephoned her attorney and *78 informed him that she had received a denial letter.

Kenton v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

180 Or. App. 548 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 2002

Petitioner has petitioned for judicial review of an administrative review response and the underlying Board action form, both of which were issued by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision. … Quintero v. Board of Parole, 329 Or 319, 326 , 986 P2d 575 (1999).

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.

Riley v. Baldwin

143 Or. App. 404 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 11, 1996

See Billings v. … Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 28 , 581 P2d 934 (1978). 1 The court erred in dismissing plaintiffs petition.

Board of Publication of the Methodist Church v. State Tax Commission

239 Or. 65 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1964

School of Bible v. Mult. Co., supra, 218 Or at 39 , and in Ore. Physicians’ Serv. v. State Tax Com., supra, 220 Or at 507 , -and in Santiam Fish & Game Ass’n v. … In a New York case, Mohawk Mills Ass’n, Inc. v.

Finch v. Stayton Canning Co.

93 Or. App. 168 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 14, 1988

In Brown v. SAIF, 79 Or App 205 , 717 P2d 1289 , rev den 301 Or 666 (1986), the claimant was concerned about his health because he was exposed to asbestos at work. … In both Brown and Johnsen , we refused to hold compensable the claims for diagnostic medical services. In Collins v.

Najjar v. Safeway, Inc.

203 Or. App. 486 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 28, 2005

Payless Drug Stores v. Brown, 300 Or 243, 246-47 , 708 P2d 1143 (1985). Relying on Stromme v. … See, e.g., Brown v. Washington County, 163 Or App 362, 375 , 987 P2d 1254 (1999), rev den, 331 Or 191 (2000).

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.

Lovelace v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

188 Or. App. 432 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 26, 2003

Petitioner argues that the rule exceeds the board’s authority granted under ORS 144.223. … Or Const, Art I, §§ 8, 12; US Const, Amends I, V. We have previously rejected petitioner’s statutory argument in Gholston v. Palmateer, 183 Or App 7 , 51 P3d 617 (2002).

Corgain v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

341 Or. 548 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 19, 2006

145 P.3d 1109 (2006) 341 Or. 548 CORGAIN v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION. No. S53356. Supreme Court of Oregon. October 19, 2006. Petition for review allowed. … The case is remanded to Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Roy v. Palmateer, 339 Or. 533 , 124 P.3d 603 (2005).

O'Bryan v. Jackson

118 Or. 514 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1926

Jenkins v. Board of Parole

341 Or. App. 134 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 4, 2025

In 2021, petitioner’s sentence was commuted by Governor Kate Brown. … See Marteeny v. Brown, 321 Or App 250, 291, 517 P3d 343, rev den, 370 Or 303 (2022) (explaining effect of commutation).

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Erlandson

290 Or. 465 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1981

Castor v. Erlandson, 277 Or 147 , 560 P2d 267 (1977). … More details of their arrangements are contained in Troutman v. Erlandson, 279 Or 595 , 569 P2d 575 (1977); Troutman v. Erlandson, 287 Or 187 , 598 P2d 1211 (1979).

Barton v. Board of Parole

344 Or. App. 636 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 5, 2025

See Jacobs v. Board of Parole, 342 Or App 41, 49, ___ P3d ___ (2025) (“We review the board’s order for substantial evidence in the record. … See 640 Barton v. Board of Parole Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v.