Case law

Gadalean v. SAIF Corp.

286 Or. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 2017

.”); Staley v. … See, e.g., BBC Brown Boveri v.

Perez v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

327 Or. 595 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1998

965 P.2d 1023 (1998) 327 Or. 595 Raul Sanchez PEREZ, Petitioner on Review, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent on Review. CA A90127; SC S43927. Supreme Court of Oregon. October 22, 1998. Eric M. … The order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision is vacated. The case is remanded to the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision for further consideration in light of Noble v.

Brown v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 10, 2012

Plaintiff asked Babcock if he had copies of information Plaintiff submitted for the board of county property tax appeals. … Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev., TC No 4530 at 4 (July 12, 2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 302 (1971)).

Jones v. Armenakis

144 Or. App. 23 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 9, 1996

Nonetheless, defendant argues that here, as we did in Troxel and in Gomez v. … See Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 28 , 581 P2d 934 (1978).

Poddar v. Clatsop County

167 Or. App. 162 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 10, 2000

Lone Oak Racing, Inc. v. Oregon Racing Commission, 162 Or App 111, 118 , 986 P2d 596 (1999); Hudson v. Feder, 115 Or App 1 , 5 n 3, 836 P2d 779 , rev den 314 Or 727 (1992). In Brown v. … Brown, 293 Or at 449-50 ; Lone Oak Racing, Inc., 162 Or App at 118 . In Eckles v.

In re John's Will

30 Or. 494 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1896

Ct. 327); Kain v. Gibbonev, 101 U. S. 362 ; *521 and Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 588 . In Magill v. Brown, Brightley N. … Brown, Bright, 347, 348. In Bartlett v. Nye, 4 Met.

Payton v. Thompson

156 Or. App. 217 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 1998

Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 28 , 581 P2d 934 (1978). … Jones v. Thompson, 156 Or App 226 , 968 P2d 380 (1998).

Oregon College of Education Federation of Teachers v. Employment Relations Board

29 Or. App. 39 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 1977

This is an appeal from an order of the Employment Relations Board (ERB) certifying that no labor organization had been elected by the faculty members of the Oregon College of Education (OCE) to represent them in collective … Furthermore, we have previously interpreted similar State Board of Higher Education regulations to provide there is no authority to discharge below the university president level. Papadopoulos v.

Oregon Moms Union v. Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · May 20, 2021

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 181 (2000); see also Assoc. Gen. Contractors v. Cal. … Sagana v. Tenorio, 384 F.3d 731, 743 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Wedges/Ledges of Cal., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 24 F.3d 56, 66 (9th Cir. 1994)) (emphasis in original); see also 910 E Main LLC v. Edwards, 481 F.

Searles v. Board of Parole

349 Or. App. 642 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 2026

Dept. of Human Services v. P. D., 368 Or 627, 496 P3d 1029 (2021). … ORS 14.175; Couey v.

Eugene v. Lane County

50 Or. 468 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1908

It is held in Brown v. School District, 12 Or. 345 ( 7 Pac. 357 ), that the collection of a void tax may be enjoined, or payment thereof may be made under protest and the amount recovered back. … See, also, Lovingston et al. v. Board of Trustees, 99 Ill. 564 ; O'Neal v. Board of School Com'rs, 27 Md. 227 .

Johnson v. DESCHUTES COUNTY EX REL. BOARD OF CTY. COMM.

249 Or. App. 60 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 28, 2012

The hearings officer explained that, “[i]n Clackamas Co. v. … As the Supreme Court explained in Alt v.

State ex rel. Public Employes' Retirement Board v. City of Portland

69 Or. App. 117 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 11, 1984

The Board of Directors shall consist of five Directors appointed by the governing body of the City. … It has 12 employes, whose salaries are set by its board of directors.

Board of Directors of Northern Wasco County People's Utility District v. Kelly

171 Or. 691 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1943

Brown: People’s Utility Districts in Oregon, 20 Ore. L. Rev., 3, 22. In In re Harper Irr. … In Clam, River Electric Co. v.

Gurule v. Board of Parole

349 Or. App. 798 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 20, 2026

See Lehman v. … Murphy v.

School Board of School District No. U2-20 JT. v. Fanning

232 Or. 593 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1962

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. ① Board of Education of Louisville v. Williams, 256 SW2d 29, 30 (Ky 1953). See, Small v. … Contra, Middlesex Theatre v. Commissioner of State Police, 28 Conn 20, 20 A2d 412 (1941) (open air theatre—building code capacity provision); Board of Education of Louisville v.

North Clackamas School District No. 12 v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board

30 Or. App. 855 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 29, 1977

Petitioner asserts on appeal that the final order of the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board is internally inconsistent and not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

State v. St. Hilaire

97 Or. App. 108 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 1989

Brown, supra, which sets forth seven factors that must be considered in determining the probative value of scientific evidence. See State v. Milbradt, supra n 3. … However, in admitting the evidence over defendant’s objection about the adequacy of the foundation, the court implicitly found that the Brown requirements were satisfied. See Ball v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DIST. v. Knight

232 Or. App. 660 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 2009

App. 660 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DIST. v. KNIGHT. KNIGHT v. CLACKAMAS COUNTY EX REL. BD. OF COM'RS. Court of Appeals of Oregon. December 16, 2009. Affirmed without opinion.

Young v. Columbia Land & Inv. Co.

53 Or. 438 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1909

In Higgins v. Lansingh, 154 Ill. 301, 384 ( 40 N. E. 362, 387 ), it appears that Higgins owned such a large interest in the company that he practically controlled it. … This principle in *443 no way conflicts with the case of Seymour v. S. F. C. Ass’n, 144 N. Y. 333 ( 39 N. E. 365 : 26 L. R. A. 859), relied upon by plaintiffs.