Case law

Niccum v. Southcoast Lumber Co.

320 Or. 189 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1994

On judicial review, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Board is authorized to resolve a claim for proposed medical treatment and remanded the case for reconsideration. Niccum v. … This court held in Martin v. City of Albany, 320 Or 175 , 880 P2d 926 (1994), that ORS 656.327(l)(a) does not authorize the director to review a dispute over proposed medical treatment.

Harwell v. Argonaut Insurance

296 Or. 505 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1984

We allowed review because the “Court of Appeals may have affirmed the Board as the result of an erroneous interpretation of the law.” Gettman v. … On the other hand, the referee, the Board, or the Court of Appeals could not be faulted if they read our cases of Walker v. Compensation Department, supra, and Wilson v. State Ind. Acc.

Partlow v. Clark

295 Or. 778 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1983

Temple v. Osburn, supra, was a suit to remove a cloud on 163 acres in Lane County. On January 19,1905, the patent from the United States Government to Texana Brown conveying that land was recorded in the deed records. … Texana Brown was the former wife of S. W. Brown, one of the defendants. On October 7,1905, Texana Brown for a valuable consideration conveyed the land to Minnie B. Temple, the plaintiff.

Mobley v. State Accident Insurance Fund

58 Or. App. 394 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 4, 1982

In Bentley v. … It is clear from our review of the record that claimant’s attorney expended time in the Board review. Cf. Bentley v.

State v. Fogle

254 Or. 268 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1969

Jones v. *275 City of Forrest City, 239 Ark 211 , 388 SW2d 386 (1965); State v. Fox, 177 Neb 238, 128 NW2d 576 (1964); and State v. … In Kyhl v.

Bremer v. Employment Division

52 Or. App. 293 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 1981

.’ * * * In the case of Bremer v. … See, e.g., Sothras v. Emp. Div., 48 Or App 69 , 616 P2d 524 (1980).

Strutz v. Employment Department

247 Or. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2011

Accordingly, the board’s first conclusion is not supported by substantial reason. See Bremer v. … Westrope v. Employment Dept., 144 Or App 163, 170 , 925 P2d 587 (1996). Here, the board failed to do so. Accordingly, the board’s second conclusion also is not supported by substantial reason.

Shearer's Foods v. Hoffnagle

284 Or. App. 859 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 19, 2017

See, e.g., Barnes v. … Oak Crest Care Center v. Bond, 101 Or App 15 , 17 n 1, 789 P2d 6 , rev den, 310 Or 121 (1990). Employer also contends that its position is borne out by our decision in TriMet v.

La Forge v. Ellis

175 Or. 545 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1944

Cr. 104 , 93 P. (2d) 21 ; Arnold v. Board of Barber Examiners, 45 N. M. 57, 109 P. (2d) 779 ; State v. McMasters, 204 Minn. 438 , 283 N. W. 767 . To the contrary are: City of Mobile v. … R. 349; Noble v. Davis, 204 Ark. 156 , 161 S. W. (2d) 189 ; In re Kazas, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 161, 70 P. (2d) 962 ; Duncan v. City of Des Moines, 222 Iowa 218 , 268 N. W. 547 ; State Board of Barber Examiners v.

Campbell v. State

254 Or. App. 726 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2013

See Erbs v. Board of Parole, 90 Or App 253, 255 , 752 P2d 318 (1988) (describing good-time calculation process). … He argues that our decision in Shelby v. Board of Parole, 244 Or App 348 , 260 P3d 682 , rev den, 351 Or 507 (2011), supports his position; the board argues in response that Shelby supports its position.

Gantenbein v. Bowles

103 Or. 277 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1922

Thomason, 30 Or. 162 ( 45 Pac. 296 ); Goldsmith v. Elwert, 31 Or. 539 (50 Pac. 867); Board of Regents v. Hutchinson, 46 Or. 57 ( 78 Pac. 1028 ); McCoy v. Crossfield, 54 Or. 591 ( 104 Pac. 423 ); Miller v. … McBride, Brown and McCourt, JJ., concur.

Hicks v. SAIF Corp.

196 Or. App. 146 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 2004

Hicks v. SAIF, 194 Or App 655 , 96 P3d 856 (2004). … Citing our opinion in Khrul v.

State ex rel. State Dental Ass'n v. Smith

201 Or. 288 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 1954

Co. v. Bean, 167 Or 535, 546 , 119 P2d 575 ; ORS 42.230. *291 In Swift & Co. and Armour & Co. v. Peterson, 192 Or 97, 108 , 233 P2d 216 , Mr. … Leonard v. Ekwall, 124 Or. 351, 359 , 264 P. 463 ; Fox v. Galloway, 174 Or. 339, 346 , 148 P2d 922 .”

Hill v. City of Portland

296 Or. App. 470 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 6, 2019

See also Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v. Benton Co. … West Communications v.

Olsen v. Deschutes County

204 Or. App. 7 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 2006

Thus, recourse to wrongful termination is available only in the absence of a remedy “adequate to protect both the interests of society * * * and the interests of employees * * Brown v. … Dept. of Revenue, 293 Or 536, 539 , 651 P2d 724 (1982) (quoting Miller v. Schrunk, 232 Or 383, 388 , 375 P2d 823 (1962)); Ayres v. Board of Parole, 194 Or App 429, 434 , 97 P3d 1 (2004).

Case v. Chambers

210 Or. 680 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1957

Justice Brown’s specially concurring opinion in Smith Securities Co. v. Multnomah County, 98 Or 418, 427-431 , 192 P 654 , 194 P 428 , with Appeal of Kliks, 158 Or 669, 686 , 76 P2d 974 , and Tax Com *696 mission v. … Off v. Morehead, 235 *700 Ill 40, 85 NE 264 ; Frederick v. Dettary, 318 Mich 252 , 28 NW2d 94 ; Swift v. Tempelos, 178 NC 487, 101 SE 8 ; Axtell v. Word (Tex Civ App) 29 SW2d 421 ; Tomforde v.

Moulton v. Logan

157 Or. 406 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1937

Ed. 402 ); Miles v. Logan, (Tex. Civ. App.) 265 S. W. 421 ; Flemming v. Stahl, 83 Fed. 940 ; Sharpe v. Los Angeles, 136 Cal. App. 732 ( 29 P. (2d) 797 ); Morgan v. Nunn, 84 Fed. 551 ; 14 R. C. L. 374, § 76; 46 C. … There are possibly exceptional cases, as observed by Circuit Judge (afterwards supreme court justice) Lurton in Morgan v.

Wiggins v. SAIF

300 Or. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 2019

As we recently recounted in Broeke v. SAIF, 300 Or App 91, 453 P3d 597 (2019), in Spurger v. … We draw them from the undisputed portions of the board’s order, supplementing with additional undisputed facts drawn from the evidence in the record. Robin v.

Pacheco-Gonzalez v. SAIF Corp.

123 Or. App. 312 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 22, 1993

We intended to make it clear in Benzinger v. Oregon Dept. of Ins. and Finance, supra, that the reconsideration process before DIF was to be concluded within the statutory time limit. … relied on Anaconda Company v.

State Ex Rel. Cady v. Allen

254 Or. 467 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1969

In Ryf v. … This was the import of our holding in Romero v.