Case law

State v. Hartley

96 Or. App. 722 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 24, 1989

See State v. Brown, supra . … See State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268 , 721 P.2d 1357 (1986).

First National Bank v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

127 Or. 147 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1928

The bonds were afterward returned to Brown and given to Mrs. Brown. … J., and Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

Cummings v. Employment Department

235 Or. App. 167 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 28, 2010

See Smithee v. … Goin v. Employment Dept., 203 Or App 758, 763 , 126 P3d 734 (2006). The board’s factual findings are discussed above.

Krisor v. Henry

256 Or. App. 56 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 3, 2013

Kay v. David Douglas Sch. Dist. … That complaint and its outcome are not relevant to this case, but figure in Krisor v. Lake County Fair Board (A149432), currently under advisement in this court. In Yancy v.

Roberts v. SAIF Corp.

341 Or. 48 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 15, 2006

See ORS 656.005(7)(b)(B) (stating exclusion). 1 The Workers’ Compensation Board held that the exclusion applied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Roberts v. SAIF, 196 Or App 414 , 102 P3d 752 (2004). … See Vsetecka v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 337 Or 502, 510 , 98 P3d 1116 (2004) (stating interpretative principle).

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).

Polk County v. Department of Revenue

14 Or. Tax 566 · Oregon Tax Court · May 6, 1999

Catherine’s Residence, Inc. v. … Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 257 Or 622 , 478 P2d 393 , 480 P2d 713 (1971). One of the problems with Brown’s approach is that he assumes that “old” accommodation fees are out-of-date.

State v. Lyon

83 Or. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 1987

We decline to do so. 7 See State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 , 445 n 35, 687 P2d 751 (1984); State v. Bennett, 17 Or App 197 , 521 P2d 31 (1974); State v. Bass, 76 Or App 396 , 708 P2d 1207 (1985); State v. … The act is administered by the Board on Police Standards and Training.

Bingham v. Lipman

40 Or. 363 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1901

Rep. 364 ); Kelley v. Highfield, 15 Or. 277 ( 14 Pac. 744 ); Day v. Holland, 15 Or. 464 ( 15 Pac. 855 ); Osmun v. Winters, 30 Or. 177 ( 46 Pac. 780 ). And as said by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in Brown v. … however, that the rule should not be applied in an action against a corporation for an injury caused by the misconduct of its agents or servants, unless the act was previously authorized or subsequently ratified by the board

Liles v. Damon Corp.

210 Or. App. 303 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 27, 2006

v. … Brown, 291 Or at 82-83 .

State v. Frey

53 Or. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 13, 1981

In support of this distinction, the state argues that the decision in Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. … See State v. Eastman, 51 Or App 723 , 626 P2d 956 (1981).

State v. Paquin

55 Or. App. 676 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 1982

In State v. … However, doubt has been cast on the suggestion in Brown that the joinder requirement is of constitutional origin. See State v.

Hamilton v. SAIF Corp.

275 Or. App. 978 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 2015

Accordingly, we reverse and remand the board’s order. We review the board’s legal determinations for errors of law. Wantowski v. Crown Cork & Seal, 175 Or App 609, 614 , 29 P3d 1165 (2001). The facts are undisputed. … See also Southwest Forest Industries 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.

State v. Hart

309 Or. 646 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1990

In State v. … Brown, 297 Or 404, 445 , 687 P2d 751 (1984), that polygraph evidence is not admissible, over proper objection, in any civil or criminal trial in this state. In State v.

State v. Hall

73 Or. 231 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1914

, as was the the case in Riggs v. … Henry, 54 Or. 230 ( 103 Pac. 439 ); State v. Sengstacken, 61 Or. 455 ( 122 Pac. 292 ); Sharp v. George, 5 Ariz. 65 ( 46 Pac. 212 ); People v. Union High School District, 101 Cal. 655 ( 36 Pac. 119 ).

Rivas v. Persson

256 Or. App. 829 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 30, 2013

Citing Hamel v. … The second case that informs our analysis is Janowski/Fleming v. Board of Parole, 349 Or 432 , 245 P3d 1270 (2010).

Wiggins Co. v. McMinnville Motor Car Co.

111 Or. 123 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1924

A case similar in principle is that of Wood v. Lester, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 145. See, also, Tedford v. Wilson, 3 Head (Tenn.), 311; Pope v. Foster, 7 Baxt. (Tenn.) 98 . … Bean, Brown and MoCourt, JJ., concur.

SAIF Corp. v. January

166 Or. App. 620 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 19, 2000

In addition to the requirement that findings be supported by substantial evidence, the Board must provide a “sufficient explanation to allow a reviewing court to examine the agency’s action.” Schoch v. … Leupold & Stevens, 325 Or 112, 118 , 934 P2d 410 (1997); see also Drew v.

Venable v. Police Commissioners

40 Or. 458 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1902

E. 975 ); Langdon v. Mayor of New York, 92 N. Y. 427 ; People ex rel. v. Board of Fire Com’rs, 72 N. Y. 445 ; Moores v. State ex rel. 54 Neb. 486 ( 74 N. W. 823 ). 3. … We quote the language of the cases: ££ The power to appoint to office or place where the term and tenure are not defined necessarily carries with it the power of removal”: People ex rel. v. Board of Fire Com’rs, 73 N.