Case law

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).

Schneider v. Emanuel Hospital

20 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 17, 1975

See Stamate v. Peterson, 250 Or 532 , 444 P2d 30 (1968); Moore v. Brown, Burke, 19 Or App 199 , 527 P2d 132 (1974). … SAIF, Stevens v. SAIF, Murphy v. SAIF, all supra, where no prejudice has resulted and where justice might otherwise be thwarted, we hold that jurisdiction for review was acquired by the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Moro v. State of Oregon

357 Or. 167 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2015

Arken v. City of Portland, 351 Or 113, 122 , 263 P3d 975 (2011), adh’d to on recons sub nom Robinson v. Public Employees Retirement Board, 351 Or 404 , 268 P3d 567 (2011). … Arlington County Board v. Richards, 434 US 5, 7 , 98 S Ct 24 , 54 L Ed 2d 4 (1977).

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).

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.

Eugene Water & Elec. Bd. v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd.

289 Or. App. 302 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 13, 2017

See DCBS v. … See, e.g. , Waddill v.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Bartlett

283 Or. 487 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1978

Compare In re Brown, 277 Or 121, 129 , 559 P2d 884 (1977); In re Boivin, 271 Or 419, 427-28 , 533 P2d 171 (1975). … In re Brown, 211 Or 121, 559 P2d 884 (1977); petition for rehearing denied, 277 Or 731 , 561 P2d 1030 (1977).

State ex rel. Travis v. Board of Parole

154 Or. App. 718 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 24, 1998

I agree with the majority that this is a proper case for mandamus, but, for the reasons that I discussed in my dissent in Weidner v. … See, e.g., State ex rel Upham v. McElligott, 326 Or 547, 553 , 956 P2d 179 (1998) (dismissing alternative writ that challenged the defendant judge’s denial of jury trial as of right to juvenile).

Walton v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

242 Or. App. 678 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 2011

*679 PER CURIAM Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the board). This court affirmed the board’s order, Walton v. … In our analysis, we cited our opinion in Fleming v. Board of Parole, 225 Or App 578 , 202 P3d 209 (2009), rev’d in part sub nom Janowski / Fleming v.

Stevenson v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

270 Or. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 6, 2015

light of Mastriano v. … See City of Eugene v.

Gramada v. SAIF

326 Or. App. 276 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 7, 2023

FACTS The parties accept the findings of the board as sub- stantially accurate. We thus state the facts consistently with the board’s unchallenged factual findings. Magana-Marquez v. … See Brown v.

Lewis v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

272 Or. App. 176 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 1, 2015

final orders); Eli v. … Furthermore, as in Mastriano and Dawson/Fletcher , the board’s later order denying reopening and reconsideration is not a final order for purposes of judicial review. See Abraham v.

Hartwell v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

272 Or. App. 332 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 22, 2015

The board argues in response that we must defer to its interpretation of the rule, because its interpretation is “plausible.” Don't Waste Oregon Com. v. … See, e.g., Swarthout v.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Peoples

59 Or. App. 593 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 1982

We affirm the court’s modification of the award as to the hearing before the referee and the Board proceeding, and reverse the award for the circuit court proceeding. SAIF relies on Bentley v. … Brown v. EBI Companies, 289 Or 905 , 618 P3d 959 (1980); Korter v. EBI Companies, Inc., 46 Or App 43 , 610 P2d 312 (1980), 51 Or App 206 , 625 P2d 667 (1981).

Durette v. Virgil

272 Or. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 22, 2015

She cites Dyer v. R. E. … State v. Southard, 347 Or 127, 139 , 218 P3d 104 (2009); State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 438-39 , 687 P2d 751 (1984). We ordinarily review a trial court’s ruling under OEC 403 for abuse of discretion. State v.

La Pine Pumice Co. v. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners

75 Or. App. 691 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 1985

See Coats v. LCDC, 67 Or App 504 , 679 P2d 898 (1984). OAR 660-16-010(1) permits the complete exclusion of conflicting uses, presumably including conflicting uses of other Goal 5 resources, from a resource site. … But see Coats v. LCDC, supra, 67 Or App at 510-11 . The goal may dictate that a conflict resolution mechanism be applied to each new potentially conflicting use as it becomes known.

Wilson v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

260 Or. App. 781 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 5, 2014

Campbell v. State of Oregon, 254 Or App 726 , 297 P3d 489 , rev den, 353 Or 747 (2013).

The New Portland Meadows v. Dieringer

153 Or. App. 383 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 15, 1998

Based on Silveira v. … In response to insurer’s argument, however, the Board also explained that under this court’s opinion in Beneficiaries of Strametz v.

Combs v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

141 Or. App. 219 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 1996

PER CURIAM Following argument on this case, the Board moved to dismiss the petition on the ground of mootness. We deny the motion without discussion. … Thierman v. Board of Parole, 134 Or App 304, 307 , 894 P2d 1250 (1995); Byrnes v. Board of Parole, 134 Or App 296 , 894 P2d 1252 (1995). Motion to dismiss denied. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Wessinger v. Mische

71 Or. 239 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1914

at the suit of an abutting owner or taxpayer; but the use of the library for administration purposes, such as for rooms for the board of education or for any other municipal body, may be enjoined: *245 Spires v. … In State ex rel. v. Brown, 111 Minn. 80 ( 126 N.