Case law

Bell v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

362 Or. 389 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 18, 2018

Finley v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

289 Or. App. 823 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 10, 2018

Fisher v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

289 Or. App. 823 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 10, 2018

Hook v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

290 Or. App. 172 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 31, 2018

Johnston v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

362 Or. 482 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2018

W. v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

297 Or. App. 811 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 30, 2019

SAIF Corp. v. Belden

155 Or. App. 568 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 2, 1998

United Airlines, Inc. v. … SAIF also argues that our decisions in Amfac, Inc. v. Garcia-Maciel, 98 Or App 88, 92 , 778 P2d 967 (1989), and Gooderham v.

Durham v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

364 Or. 749 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 2, 2019

Murphy v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

364 Or. 723 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2019

Morales v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

296 Or. App. 904 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 3, 2019

Sunrise Electric, Inc. v. Ramirez

181 Or. App. 401 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 8, 2002

We accordingly reverse the Board’s order and remand to permit it to clarify the basis for its decision. See Labor Force v. Frierson, 169 Or App 573, 578 , 9 P3d 128 (2000); SAIF v. … Brown, 159 Or App 440, 445-46 , 978 P3d 407 (1999). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration. 1 Both Sunrise Electric, Inc., and Farmers have petitioned for review of the Board’s order.

Russell v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n

9 Or. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 1972

See, e.g., Gibbs v. Multnomah County et al, 219 Or 84 , 346 P2d 636 (1959); In Re Estate of T. A. Stoll, 188 Or 682 , 214 P2d 345 , 217 P2d 595 (1950); Brown v. … No. 7 v.

Local 1724B, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Board of County Commissioners

5 Or. App. 81 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 25, 1971

Lane County v. Heintz Const. Co. et al, 228 Or 152, 157 , 364 P2d 627 (1961). … Co. et al v. Portland et al, 196 Or 551, 565 , 249 P2d 175 , 250 P2d 929 (1952).

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Klamath County

143 Or. 471 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1933

February 4,1928, Brown abandoned performance of his contract and on or about that day the Board of County Commissioners held a session at which were present the members of the Board, its legal advisor, the claim superintendent … State ex rel. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 125 Or. 13 ( 265 P. 775 ).

Kuniholm v. Portland Electric Power Co.

133 Or. 246 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1930

*248 BROWN", J. … Plaintiff says he then boarded the car, and, while standing upon the steps thereof, with his hands grasping the rails and both feet firmly *249 planted upon the running board, he saw the conductor signal to the motorman by

Payne v. Department of Commerce

61 Or. App. 165 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 1982

Board of Comm, of Clackamas County v. LCDC, 35 Or App 725 , 582 P2d 59 (1978). ERB is not statutorily authorized to set aside a dismissal for failure of the dismissing agency to comply with a personnel rule. … Hammer v. OSP, supra, 276 Or at 655; Tupper v. Fairview Hospital, supra, 276 Or at 665. Affirmed. Payne is a respondent in this case, as is ERB.

Woodroffe v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

362 Or. 389 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 18, 2018

Stairs v. Price

247 Or. 190 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 24, 1967

Magee v. Yamhill County

244 Or. 567 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1966

Dahl v. Clackamas County, 82 Or Adv Sh 397, 412 P2d 364 (1966); Freytag v. Vitas, 213 Or 462 , 326 P2d 110 (1958).

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Greene

290 Or. 291 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1980

The Trial Board and the Disciplinary Review Board found Greene innocent of all charges except one. … Brown v. Hilleary, 133 Or 26, 38 , 286 P 593 (1930). Greene should have advised the court that the money was being used to acquire an interest in real property owned by the conservator.