Case law

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).

Southern Oregon Co. v. Coos County

39 Or. 185 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1901

It must be conceded that the assessor in fixing and the board of equalization in revising values act judicially : Steel v. Fell, 29 Or. 272 ( 45 Pac. 794 ); Oregon Coal Co. v. Coos County, 30 Or. 308 ( 47 Pac. 851 ). 2. … As was said in Kirkwood v.

Basquall v. The City of Carlisle

39 F. 807 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 20, 1889

Justice Brown says, (page 395:) “The only recognized qualification of the seaman’s right of recovery is where the injuries have arisen from his own gross and willful misconduct.” And in Olson v. Flavel, 34 Fed. … Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1 ; Ben. Adm. § 261.

State v. Dickerson

260 Or. App. 80 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 18, 2013

See Atkinson v. … Couch, 196 Or App at 676 n 5; see Toomer v.

Atkinson v. Fairview Dairy Farms

190 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1950

This question of joint supervision and control of the premises under' the act being considered has been before the court in only three cases, i.e., Inwall v. Transpacific Lumber Co., supra, Brown v. … Plaintiff attempts to distinguish the case of Brown v. Underwood Lumber Co., supra, from the case at *11 bar.

Pierce v. Douglas School District No. 4

297 Or. 363 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1984

Armistead v. … Armistead v. State Personnel Bd., supra n 4; Am. Fed. of Tchrs., Etc. v. Bd of Ed, Etc., 107 Cal App 3d 829, 840, 166 Cal Rptr 89, 95-96 (1980). 6 ORS 342.545(2) uses the expression “mutual agreement.”

Luton v. Willamette Valley Rehabilitation Center

272 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 22, 2015

We review the board’s legal conclusions for legal error and its determinations on factual issues for substantial evidence, which includes substantial reason. ORS 183.482(8); Cummings v. … Smirnoff v. SAIF, 188 Or App 438, 443 , 72 P3d 118 (2003).

King v. SAIF

300 Or. App. 267 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 2019

Cope v. West American Ins. … King v.

Warkentin v. Employment Department

245 Or. App. 128 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 17, 2011

See Hill v. … Drew v.

Roy v. Palmateer

194 Or. App. 330 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 4, 2004

See also Napier v. … See Norris v.

Richter v. Derby

135 Or. 400 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1931

This is only a court of review: State v. Jennings, 131 Or. 455 ( 282 P. 560 ); State v. Hay, 132 Or. 223 ( 285 P. 753 ). … J., Belt and Brown, JJ., concur.

The Fideliter

8 F. Cas. 1177 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 20, 1869

V. That the matter of fact stated in the affirmation of said Kohl, made before the said William S. … S., 5 Cranch, 305 ; Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 318 ; Adm. Rule 22.

Sutherlin School District 130 v. Herrera

120 Or. App. 86 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 1993

Brown v. Dorfman, 251 Or 522, 526 , 446 P2d 672 (1969); Gymnastics USA v. McDougal, 92 Or App 453, 457 , 758 P2d 881 , rev den 307 Or 77 (1988); see also ORS 105.005. … See also Shumate v.

State v. Briggs

45 Or. 366 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1904

: Barmore v. … State Board of Medical Examiners, 21 Or. 301 ( 28 Pac. 8 ); People ex rel. v. Dental Examiners, 110 Ill. 180 .

SAIF Corp. v. Pepperling

237 Or. App. 79 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 1, 2010

The ALJ and the board agreed with claimant. Citing Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Crompton, 150 Or App 531 , 946 P2d 1171 (1997), and Albany General Hospital v. … In *85 reviewing the board’s evaluation of Girod’s opinion, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the board; rather, we determine whether the board’s evaluation of that evidence was reasonable. Asten-Hill Co. v.

Weidner v. Armenakis

154 Or. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 20, 1998

Plaintiff first argues that the Board’s application of ORS 144.125(3) (1993) violated the ex post facto provisions of *16 the state and federal constitutions. In Meadows v. … , make the final determination whether a prisoner’s release should be deferred. 2 See, e.g., State v.

State v. Matischeck

21 Or. App. 300 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 5, 1975

This case is again before us on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Hammang, 271 Or 749 , 534 P2d 501 (1975). … We adhere to our prior analysis of the prosecutorial-knowledge element of the double-jeopardy test of State v. Brown, 262 Or 442 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972).

Karjalainen v. Curtis Johnston & Pennywise, Inc.

208 Or. App. 674 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 18, 2006

Coast Security Mortgage Corp. v. Real Estate Agency, 331 Or 348, 353 , 15 P3d 29 (2000). Examples include the terms “weapon,” Brundridge v. Board of Parole, 192 Or App 648 , 87 P3d 703 (2004); “wildlife,” State v. … Hale v.

Thompson v. Secretary of State

19 Or. App. 74 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 23, 1974

In this regard we noted in Phillips v. … Bay v.

Gettman v. State Accident Insurance Fund

289 Or. 609 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1980

Weller v. Union Carbide, 288 Or 27 , 602 P2d 259 (1979); Sahnow v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 260 Or 564 , 491 P2d 997 (1971). … The circumstances suggest to us, however, that the Court of Appeals may have affirmed the Board as the result of an erroneous interpretation of the law. In Bowman v.