Case law

Milcrest Corp. v. Clackamas County

59 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 1982

See Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446 , 648 P2d 1289 (1982). Clackamas County is not a party. *181 to the appeal. 3 See note 1, supra. … See Webber v.

State v. Estes

34 Or. 196 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1898

203 power, and was susceptible of ratification by the board, which would have effect by relation, and confirm that which was already done: Kinsley v. … City of Minonk, 62 Ill. 121 ; Newman v. Ravenscroft, 67 Ill. 496 ; Beckwith v. Talbot, 2 Colo. 604 ; Doane v. Glenn, 1 Colo. 454 ; Walker v. State, 102 Ind. 502 ( 1 N. E. 856 ); Morgan v. Hays, 91 Ind. 132 ; Harris v.

McWilliams v. Randall

275 F. Supp. 700 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 6, 1967

McWilliams is now on parole subject to the control and custody of the respondent, the Director of the State Board of Parole and Probation. … McWilliams v. Gladden, 242 Or. 333 , 407 P.2d 833 (1965).

Rosebraugh v. Tigard

120 Or. 411 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1926

Co. v. Eggleston, 96 U. S. 577 ( 24 L. Ed. 841 ), found in Arnold v. Emp. Mut. Ann. Life Ins. Co., 3 Ga. App. 685 ( 60 S. E. 470 ), incorporated in the opinion in French v. … J., and Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

SAIF Corp. v. Maldonado (In re Maldonado)

294 Or. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 2018

Accordingly, we reverse and remand. 1 We review the board's order for substantial evidence and legal error, ORS 656.298(7) ; ORS 183.482(8), and substantial reason, Christman v. SAIF , 181 Or. … As explained below, SAIF is correct that the board erred in its application of the law of the case. In ILWU, Local 8 v. Port of Portland , 279 Or.

Towey v. City of Hood River

321 Or. App. 414 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 24, 2022

Maguire v. Clackamas County, 250 Or App 146, 162, 279 P3d 314 (2012) (citing Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142, 881 P2d 119 (1994)). … LUBA explained that 426 Towey v.

Humphry v. Portland

79 Or. 430 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1916

In Pullen v. … As tending to show the liability of a municipal corporation to a person who has sustained an injury by reason of an unsafe street, see the notes to the cases of Browning v. City of Springfield, 63 Am.

Ross v. Springfield School District No. 19

294 Or. 357 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1982

In a concurring opinion one board member distinguished Burton v. … See Spray v. Board of Medical Examiners, 50 Or App 311, 321 , 624 P2d 125 , rev den 291 Or 117 (1981).

Precision Castparts Corp - PCC Structurals v. Cramer

320 Or. App. 324 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 15, 2022

Orowheat-Bimbo Bakeries v. … Finally, employer contends that the board’s order lacked substantial reason because it did not articulate the board’s reasoning or explain how the facts led to the board’s conclusion. See Taylor v.

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. M. A.-J.

228 Or. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 27, 2009

As for the patdown, the state contends that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. … In State v.

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.

Pape v. Linn County

135 Or. 430 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1930

In Beekman v. … Belt and Brown, JJ., concur. Kelly, J., not sitting.

Enes v. Pomeroy

104 Or. 169 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 23, 1922

Brown and took possession of the property. … Justice Watson in Hurford v.

Acuna v. SAIF

346 Or. App. 29 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 2025

Again, however, the board did not articulate how those factors weighed in its conclusion. See Taylor v. … The board provided a reasonable basis for its decision. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v.

Haskins v. Palmateer

186 Or. App. 159 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 5, 2003

Byrnes v. Board of Parole, 134 Or App 296, 300 , 894 P2d 1252 (1995). … City of Klamath Falls v. Environ. Quality Comm., 318 Or 532, 543 , 870 P2d 825 (1994). Thus, we decline to read such a term into the board’s rules.

Bundy v. NuStar GP, LLC

Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2017

Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or 241, 254, 391 P3d 773 (2017). … See Brown, 361 Or at 249 (describ- ing essential principle).

SAIF Corp. v. Martinez

219 Or. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 2008

We review for substantial evidence and errors of law, ORS 656.298(7); ORS 183.482, and to determine whether the board’s analysis comports with substantial reason. See Drew v. … ORS 656.704; AIG Claim Services v.

Hughes, Trustee v. Honeyman

186 Or. 616 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 24, 1949

The Home v. Selling, 91 Or. 428, 438 , 179 P. 261 , 21 A. L. R. 403; Brown v. Drake, 103 Or. 607, 609 , 205 P. 1002 . See 34 C. J. S., Executors and Administrators, section 396 and note 70; 24 C. … The idea is put forward that the court’s comment in Brown v.

Short v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

305 Or. 541 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1988

Like its companion cases of Greenslitt v. City of Lake Oswego, 305 Or 530 , 754 P2d 570 (1988), and Guill v. … Ohlig v.

Oregon Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. Peterson

244 Or. 116 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1966

To like effect, see American Can Co. v. … Angelos v. Board of Dental Examiners, 244 Or 1 , 414 P2d 335 (1966).