Case law

Miller v. Elisea

302 Or. App. 188 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 2020

Marcum v. Adventist Health System/West, 345 Or 237, 240, 193 P3d 1 (2008). Defendant did not dispute the professional qualifications of Brown and Freeman or the diagnosis of fibromyalgia. … The court described the considerations relevant to the admissibility of scientific evidence under OEC 401, 702, and 403, State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984), and State v.

Foundation of Human Understanding v. Masters

313 Or. App. 119 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2021

Williams v. … Regardless of David’s belief as to Roy’s capacity, he acknowledged that the removal was undertaken by him and Mark as “the Board,” not as Successor Founder. 126 Foundation of Human Understanding v.

State v. Stafford

184 Or. App. 674 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 6, 2002

State v. Dixon / Digby, 307 Or 195, 211-12 , 766 P2d 1015 (1988). … State v. Gabbard, 129 Or App 122, 126-27 , 877 P2d 1217 , rev den, 320 Or 131 (1994) (citing State v. Ohling, 70 Or App 249 , 688 P2d 1384 , rev den, 298 Or 334 (1989)).

Guild v. SAIF Corp. (In re Guild)

291 Or. App. 793 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 16, 2018

The board affirmed the Notice of Closure, thereby upholding the denial of PTD. We review the board's order upholding SAIF's denial of PTD benefits for errors of law and substantial evidence. Elsea v. … See Hunter v. SAIF Corp. , 246 Or. App. 755 , 765, 268 P.3d 660 (2011) ("The board can reject an expert's medical opinion as unpersuasive, but it must explain its reasons for doing so."); Port of Portland OCIP v.

Pennicard v. Coe

124 Or. 423 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1928

BROWN, J. On May 12, 1922, U. 0. … In the later case of State v.

Abbot v. Oregon Railroad

46 Or. 549 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 22, 1905

In Hrebik v. Carr (D. … Co. v. Woolridge, 32 Ill.

Walker v. Providence Health System Oregon

254 Or. App. 676 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2013

“We review the board’s decision for substantial evidence and errors of law, and to determine whether the board’s analysis comports with substantial reason.” SAIF v. Ramos, 252 Or App 361, 363 , 287 P3d 1220 (2012). … Providence Health System v. Walker, 252 Or App 489 , 289 P3d 256 (2012) (Walker II).

Pham v. Thompson

156 Or. App. 440 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 7, 1998

Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 28 , 581 P2d 934 (1978); Sager v. Board of Parole, 121 Or App 607, 612-13 , 856 P2d 329 , rev den 318 Or 170 (1993). … In Nelson v.

State v. Fox

313 Or. App. 317 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 14, 2021

Although Brown testified that Blue Cross paid for M’s ambu- lance flight, facility charges, and a follow-up appointment, Brown did not provide a breakdown of the cost of each ser- vice. … See State v.

City of Salem v. Stadeli

327 Or. App. 396 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 9, 2023

On judicial review, this court reversed the board’s order. SAIF v. Thompson, 267 Or App 356, 340 P3d 163 (2014), rev’d, 360 Or 155, 379 P3d 494 (2016). … v.

Hamel v. Johnson

330 Or. 180 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 6, 2000

In this habeas corpus proceeding, ORS 34.310 etseq., the Court of Appeals dismissed as moot petitioner’s challenge to a January 1997 order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board). Hamel v. … Harris v. Board of Parole, 288 Or 495, 503 , 605 P2d 1181 (1980).

Wallace v. State ex rel. Public Employees Retirement System

249 Or. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 4, 2012

In Brumnett v. … As we explained in Starrett v.

Branton v. Oregon State Penitentiary

89 Or. App. 597 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 24, 1988

In State v. … The only change in the law since State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984), which we cited in our former opinion, is emphasized in the above quote.

Peabody v. Saif Corp. (In re Comp. of Peabody)

297 Or. App. 704 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 2019

We agree with claimant that the board erred by not adequately explaining the basis for the attorney fee award. "Orders of the board must be supported by substantial reason." Taylor v. SAIF , 295 Or. … App. at 203 , 433 P.3d 419 ; see also Schoch v.

Federal Express Corp. v. Estrada

275 Or. App. 400 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 9, 2015

Meltebeke v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 322 Or 132, 134 , 903 P2d 351 (1995). … With those arguments in mind, we consider whether the board’s order is supported by substantial evidence and reason, as ORS 183.482(8)(c) requires. See Hamilton v.

State v. Osborne

82 Or. App. 229 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 12, 1986

Brown testified that Saunders asked him to help him commit the murder and burn the house. … United States v. Perez, 658 F2d 654 (9th Cir 1981). Here, Saunders’ statement soliciting Brown’s help contained neither assertions nor recollections of past facts. It also did not misrepresent defendant’s involvement.

State v. Wehr

275 Or. App. 528 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 2015

See ORAP 5.45(1) (authorizing review of errors apparent on the record); State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (identifying requirements for plain error). … State v. Brown, 272 Or App 321, 324-25 , 355 P3d 129 (2015). In that case, the defendant was not “actively instrumental” in bringing about the error.

Hawley v. Hawley

43 Or. 352 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1903

Brown. … Kiernan, 23 Or. 455 ( 32 Pac. 158 ); Cooper v. Thomason, 30 Or. 161 ( 45 Pac. 296 ). Instead of pursuing this course, the legal title was secured by Mrs. Brown in an attempt to defeat Mrs. Hawley’s equity ; but, as Mrs.

Duerst v. Limbocker

269 Or. 252 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1974

Even assuming that the court can render a statute irrational by force of its own remolding of court-made law, Brown v. … Oviatt, 520 P2d 883 (Utah 1974); Keasling v. Thompson, 217 NW2d 687 (Iowa 1974). See also Delaney v. Badame, 49 I112d 168, 274 NE2d 353 (1971). ⑤ In Brown v.

Haidar v. PSRB

324 Or. App. 129 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 2023

ORS 183.482(8)(c); Rinne v. PSRB, 297 Or App 549, 557, 443 P3d 731 (2019). In addition to substantial evidence, we also review for substantial reason. City of Roseburg v. … Knotts v. PSRB, 250 Or App 448, 455, 280 P3d 1030 (2012). “If the board’s reasoning cannot be ascertained or is faulty, then the order is not supported by substantial reason.” Id.