Case law

State v. Jacobson

80 Or. 648 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1916

Rep. 592); Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446 ( 29 L. Ed. 691 , 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 454); Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275 ( 23 L. Ed. 347 ); Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299 ( 13 L. Ed. 996 ); Brown v. … In State v.

State v. Dilley

15 Or. 70 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1887

(Hastings v. Palmer, 20 Wend. 225 .) Our statute prescribes substantially the same course. (Civ. Code, § 194.) … (Shepard v. Potter, 4 Hill, 202 .) This may appear to be a very refined view of the question, but the objection to the. admission of the testimony was wholly technical.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Noffsinger

80 Or. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 13, 1986

The Board affirmed without elaboration. … In Stark v. State Industrial Acc.

Rivera v. Perlo Construction, LLC

336 Or. App. 307 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 20, 2024

Brown. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Kistler, Senior Judge.* ______________ * Egan, J., vice Jacquot, J. 308 Rivera v. Perlo Construction, LLC KISTLER, S. J. … See SAIF v.

Smith v. Department of Corrections

243 Or. App. 45 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 25, 2011

As a New York court explained in State v. Rosado, 889 NYS 2d 369 , 377-78 (2009): “The [STATIC-99] is called ‘static’ because it looks only at static, i.e., unchanging, historical events. … Until the board indicates, in some reasonable way, where Exhibit Q-I and Exhibit Q-II may be found, the board rules that refer to STATIC-99 are invalid.

Robey v. Weir Esco

346 Or. App. 208 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 31, 2025

The board concluded that claimant’s condition arose over time and analyzed it as an occupational disease. See generally James v. … The board’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8)(c); Garcia v.

Smith v. Smith

2 Or. App. 398 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 1970

In Brown v. … See also authorities cited in Brown v. Brown, supra. We are of the opinion that the same principles also control this case. Thus, it is not necessary for us to discuss the defendant’s other assignments of error.

Smith v. Smith

205 Or. 286 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1955

Landgraver v. Emanuel Lutheran Charity Board, Inc. — Or —, 280 P2d 301 . … .” *303 The court quoted the portion of the opinion in Brown v. Brown, supra, which we have also quoted with approval. In Scotvold v.

Greenslitt v. City of Lake Oswego

305 Or. 530 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1988

Group v. … See Shoulders v. SAIF, supra, 300 Or at 615 ; Bracke v. Baza’r, 294 Or 483, 490 , 658 P2d 1158 (1983).

State v. Chase

263 Or. App. 709 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 18, 2014

See State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (“The court generally must instruct on all essential elements of the crime charged.”). … See ORAP 5.45(1); Ailes v.

Application of Shrewsbury

52 Or. App. 81 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 5, 1981

In some respects, the situation resembles that involved in Penrod/Brown v. … See Peters v. Renfro, 43 Or App 411 , 602 P2d 1137 (1979).

Rogers v. CorVel Enterprise Comp, Inc.

317 Or. App. 116 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 20, 2022

Coday v. … See Seeley v.

Liberty M & Saif Corp. v. Lynch Co. (In re Comp. of Alcorn)

295 Or. App. 809 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2019

Robinson v. SAIF , 147 Or. App. 157 , 160, 935 P.2d 454 (1996) ; McIntyre v. Standard Utility Contractors, Inc. , 135 Or. App. 298 , 301, 897 P.2d 1202 (1995) ; Mandell v. SAIF , 41 Or. … Hicks v. SAIF , 196 Or. App. 146 , 151, 100 P.3d 1129 (2004) (court will affirm the board's reasonable interpretation of the medical evidence supported by substantial evidence).

State v. Webber

181 Or. App. 229 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 8, 2002

State v. Stephens, 178 Or App 31, 38 , 35 P3d 1061 (2001). … In her written report, Brown reports that appellant said, “This was just a normal brother to brother fight, and that his family *239 overreacted.” Brown found that appellant “was fully oriented.”

Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer School District

341 Or. 401 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 28, 2006

Norden v. Water Resources Dept., 329 Or 641, 645 , 996 P2d 958 (2000). As part of that first level of analysis, this court considers its prior interpretations of the statute. State v. … See, e.g., State v. Reid, 319 Or 65, 68-69 , 872 P2d 416 (1994) (citing and relying upon pre-PGE case law); State ex rel Huddleston v. Sawyer, 324 Or 597, 608 , 932 P2d 1145 (1997) (same).

SAIF Corp. v. DeLeon

241 Or. App. 614 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 23, 2011

We agree with SAIF that ORS 656.382(2), as interpreted by this court in Santos v. Caryall Transport, 171 Or App 467, 469 , 17 P3d 509 (2000), rev den, 332 Or 558 (2001) (Santos II), and SAIF v. … Claimant appealed the ALJ’s order to the Workers’ Compensation Board, and the board reversed the ALJ, reinstating the 11 percent award.

Borg v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 67 · Oregon Tax Court · Aug 12, 1988

Dept. of Treas., 155 Mich App 778 , 401 NW2d 62 (1986); Comm. of Rev. v. Plymouth Home National Bank, 394 Mass 66, 473 NE2d 1139 (1985). As the court found in Brown v. … Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner, supra.

Torres v. SAIF

321 Or. App. 408 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 24, 2022

When reviewing the board’s evaluation of medical opinions, “we do not substitute our judgment for that of the board”; we determine only whether the board’s evaluation was reasonable. SAIF v. … Corkum v. Bi-Mart Corp., 271 Or App 411, 422, 350 P3d 585 (2015); Murdoch v.

Keystone RV Co.-Thor Industries, Inc. v. Erickson

277 Or. App. 631 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 20, 2016

Washington County v. … See SAIF v.

Kelley v. Sisters of Providence in Oregon

98 Or. App. 684 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 11, 1989

See Patton v. J. C. … See Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or 220 , 779 P2d 1000 (1989).