Case law

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.

Magana-Marquez v. SAIF Corp.

276 Or. App. 32 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 21, 2016

Notwithstanding that factual finding, she relies on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Schleiss v. … See, e.g., Brown v. SAIF, 262 Or App 640, 647-51 , 325 P3d 834 , rev allowed, 356 Or 397 (2014) (generally differentiating between the statutory phrases “compensable injury” and “accepted condition”).

Allen v. SAIF Corp.

279 Or. App. 135 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 2016

For example, in Vasquez v. … Corp., 271 Or App 211, 214 , 350 P3d 470 (2015) (stating that “‘[t]he question is whether claimant’s work-related injury incident is the major contributing cause of the [consequential] condition’” (quoting Brown 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.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Paresi

62 Or. App. 139 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 2, 1983

Paresi v. SAIF, 290 Or 365 , 624 P2d 572 (1981); *142 see also James v. SAIF, 290 Or 343 , 624 P2d 565 (1981) (companion case). This court then remanded to the Board. Paresi v. … Brown v. EBI Companies, 289 Or 905 , 618 P2d 959 (1980); SAIF v. Peoples, supra, 59 Or App at 596 .

Ingram v. AMFAC, Inc.

73 Or. App. 197 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 1985

We have held that “forthwith” means within 30 days of the Board’s order. SAIF v. … See Brown v. EBI Companies, 289 Or 905 , 618 P2d 959 (1980); SAIF v. Paresi, 62 Or App 139 , 142 n 1, 660 P2d 684 , rev den 295 Or 259 (1983). She may, however, finally prevail in AMFAC, Inc. v.

Snow v. Oregon State Penitentiary

308 Or. 259 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1989

State v. Brown, supra, 297 Or at 442 . … Constitutional due process is satisfied by an even lower standard, viz., if there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by a disciplinary board. See Superintendent v.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Castro

60 Or. App. 112 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 1982

See Wolfe Investments v. … See also Begley v. Vogler, 612 SW2d 339, 341 (Ky 1981); Dalton v. Johnson, 341 SW2d 596, 597 (Mo 1960).

Wehrung v. Portland Country Club

61 Or. 48 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1912

Brown v. Moore, 3 Or. 435, 438 . … L.; Stokes v. Brown, 20 Or. 530 ( 26 Pac. 561 ) ; Denn v. Peters, 36 Or. 486, 490 ( 59 Pac. 1109 ); Creecy v. Joy, 40 Or. 28, 31 ( 66 Pac. 295 ).

Caren v. Providence Health Sys. Or. (In re Caren)

365 Or. 466 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2019

See Brown v. SAIF , 361 Or. 241 , 283, 391 P.3d 773 (2017) (explaining that process for construing a different provision of chapter 656). … Brown v. SAIF , 361 Or. 241 , 272, 391 P.3d 773 (2017).

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

345 Or. 158 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 23, 2008

190 P.3d 379 (2008) 345 Or. 158 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DIST. v. KNIGHT. No. (S055903). Supreme Court of Oregon. July 23, 2008. Petition for review denied.

Walton v. Board of Parole

346 Or. App. 359 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 31, 2025

We are required to “consider both the evidence that supports and detracts from the board’s findings,” Mendacino v. Board of Parole, 287 Or 362 Walton v. … See Castro v.

Jefferson County School District No. 509-J v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board

102 Or. App. 83 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 6, 1990

See Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 294 Or 357, 363-64 , 657 P2d 188 (1982). … See ORS 342.905(5); Thomas v. Cascade Union High Sch. Dist. No. 5, 80 Or App 736 , 724 P2d 330 (1986).

Coghill v. Millworks

125 Or. App. 57 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 1993

However, the Board was not required to accept the referee’s credibility assessments, or even to address them. See Erck v. Brown Oldsmobile, 311 Or 519, 526-527 , 815 P2d 1251 (1991). … Our only responsibility in reviewing the Board’s order is to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence. Erck v. Brown Oldsmobile, supra.

Cominco Products, Inc. v. State Tax Commission

2 Or. Tax 157 · Oregon Tax Court · May 27, 1965

Brown v. Maryland, 25 US (12 Wheat) 419, 6 L Ed 678 (1827); Low v. Austin, 80 US (13 Wall) 29, 20 L Ed 517 (1871). … *161 In State v. Board of Review, City of Milwaukee, supra, and Parrot & Co. v.

Anderson v. Publishers Paper Co.

93 Or. App. 516 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 26, 1988

Naught v. Gamble, supra n 2; Cogswell v. SAIF, 74 Or App 234, 237 , 702 P2d 81 (1985). … See Brown v. EBI Companies, 289 Or 455, 457 , 616 P2d 457 (1980); Naught v. Gamble, Inc., 87 Or App 145, 150 , 741 P2d 901 (1987).

Vedder v. Board of Parole

341 Or. App. 139 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 4, 2025

Affirmed. 140 Vedder v. Board of Parole KAMINS, J. … 142 Vedder v.

Long v. Board of Parole

346 Or. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 2025

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON JOSEPH CHARLES LONG, Petitioner, v. … Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board). Petitioner’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v.

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.