Case law

Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. John Day Irrigation District

106 Or. 140 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1923

S.) 825); Leavengood v. McGee, 50 Or. 233 ( 91 Pac. 453 ); Umatilla Water Users’ Assn. v. Irvin, 56 Or. 414 ( 108 Pac. 1016 ); Brown v. Webb, 60 Or. 526 ( 120 Pac. 387 , Ann. Cas. 1914A, 148); Splonskofsky v. … Evans, 82 Or. 54 ( 160 Pac. 140 ); State ex rel. v. Deschutes County et al., 88 Or. 661 ( 173 Pac. 158 ). In Brown v. Webb, supra, Mr.

City of Pendleton v. Land Use Board of Appeals

51 Or. App. 539 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 6, 1981

The first issue regarding the timeliness of the filing with LUBA of the notice of intent to appeal has been addressed in Hoffman v. … Compare, Shanks v. Washington County, supra, 22 Or App at 428.

Aloha Church of God v. Board of County Commissioners

34 Or. App. 1111 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 1978

Reversed and remanded with instructions to remand to the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County for the entry of an order which conforms to the requirements of Home Plate, Inc. v.

Payette-Oregon Slope Irrigation District v. Coughanour

162 Or. 458 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1939

Y. 324 ; Hassan v. City of Rochester, 67 N. Y. 528 ; Helm v. Witz, 35 Ind. App. 131 , 73 N. E. 846 ; Diggins v. Brown, 76 Cal. 318 , 18 P. 373 ; Ryan v. … Board of Supervisors, St. Croix County, 46 Wis. 210 , 50 N. W. 1013 . We are not dealing with a case, as in Cannon v.

School District No. 1 v. State Board of Education

250 Or. 133 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 17, 1968

Midland County, Texas, 390 US 474 , 88 S Ct 1114 , 20 L ed2d 45 (1968); Dusch et al v. Davis et al, 387 US 112 , 87 S Ct 1554 , 18 L ed2d 656 (1967); Reynolds v. … Sims, 377 US 533 , 84 S Ct 1362 , 12 L ed2d 506 (1964); and Gray v. Sanders, 372 US 368 , 83 S Ct 801 , 9 L ed2d 821 (1963). We doubt the relevance of such a contention.

Hopkins v. Board of Parole

334 Or. App. 652 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 28, 2024

Petitioner seeks judicial review from 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. … See, e.g., State v. Yother, 310 Or App 563, 484 P3d 1098 (2021) (deciding matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v.

Brown v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 17, 2024

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON AMANDA BROWN, Case No. 6:23-cv-01507-AA Plaintiff … Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 130 S.

Brown v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 29, 2024

Br. at 11; see Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996) (an ALJ must offer clear and convincing reasons for rejecting a claimant’s testimony about their symptom severity). … Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2014). A remand for an award of benefits should only be made in rare circumstances. Id. at 1100.

Anderson v. Board of Parole

331 Or. App. 476 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 6, 2024

ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. … State v. Hubbard, 290 Or App 640, 417 P3d 498, rev den, 363 Or 283 (2018); State v. Haynes, 168 Or App 565, 7 P3d 623, rev den, 331 Or 283 (2000).

Evans v. Hurlburt

117 Or. 274 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1926

The authority of the board so to act is challenged, but not the manner in which it was exercised. … J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Bald-Eagle v. Board of Parole

341 Or. App. 451 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 25, 2025

Reversed and remanded. 452 Bald-Eagle v. Board of Parole EGAN, J. … Under our decisions in Thomsen v. Board of Parole, 333 Or App 703, 554 P3d 308, rev den, 373 Or 81 (2024), and Allen v.

State v. Duniway

63 Or. 555 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1912

There is no reason why the State cannot proceed under that section as well as an individual or a private corporation. 36 Cyc. 907; Brown v. State, 5 Colo. 496, 498 ; Delafield v. State of Illinois, 2 Hill (N. … Dillon, Municipal Corporations, Section 43; Brown v. State, 5 Colo. 496, 498 . It is said by Mr. Justice Bean, in the case of State ex rel. v. Metschan, 32 Or. 372, 384 ( 46 Pac. 793 : 53 Pac. 107 : 41 L. R.

Trautmann v. Supreme Lodge

107 Or. 593 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1923

This gave the board the power in this instance to cancel Trautmann’s certificate, as it could not be reduced to a minimum amount, being already the minimum, and the board’s action in so canceling was strictly within its power … Bean, Brown and McCourt, JJ., concur.

Stewart v. Board of Parole

326 Or. App. 542 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 2023

In Stewart v. … See State v.

Haverly v. Board of Parole

335 Or. App. 414 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 9, 2024

In Thomsen v. … See also Sohappy v.

Matter of Compensation of Bracke

294 Or. 483 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1983

See, Cunningham v. Compensation Dept., 1 Or App 127 , 459 P2d 892 (1969), and Boorman v. … v.

State v. D. J. M.

366 Or. 292 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 9, 2020

Brown (A162584)(S067385)(300 Or App 530) State v. Postlethwait, William Anthony (A167015)(S067153)(300 Or App 217) Appellant’s petition for review is allowed. … Kelly (A167499)(S067405)(300 Or App 823) King v. Oregon Department of State Police (A168712)(S067319)(300 Or App 823) M & S Electric, LLC v. Electrical and Elevator Board (A167597)(S067315)(300 Or App 823).

Cook v. Employment Division

293 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1982

In Cook v. Employment Division, 51 Or App 307 , 625 P2d 668 (1981), the Court of Appeals denied the petition for attorney fees, noting that in a related case, Brown v. … We reverse and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for a ruling on the matter of attorney fees on a basis which is consistent with ORS 183.495. 1 See Brown v.

Wille v. Board of Parole

331 Or. App. 338 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 28, 2024

Our review of the board’s order is “confined to the record.” ORS 183.482(7). We consider evidence that detracts from the board’s findings, but we do not reweigh the evidence. Mendacino v. … Board of Parole, 287 Or App 822, 834, 404 P3d 1048 (2017), rev den, 362 Or 508 (2018). And we do not substitute our judgment for that of the board on any issue of fact. Dixon v.

Radley v. Columbia Railway Co.

44 Or. 332 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1904

Scarboro, 97 Ala. 316 ( 12 South. 289 ); Willmot v. Corrigan Consol. St. Ry. Co. 106 Mo. 535 ( 17 S. W. 490 ); Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 123 Ill. 162 ( 14 N. E. 197 , 5 Am. St. Rep. 510 ); Indianapolis & St. … Indianapolis v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291 , and Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 123 Ill. 162 ( 5 Am. St. Rep. 510 , 14 N. E. 195 ), are not in any way parallel cases.