Case law

Lopez v. SAIF Corp.

281 Or. App. 679 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 19, 2016

In Argonaut Ins. v. … Our inquiry on review of the board’s determination of good cause is whether the board’s order falls within the range of the board’s discretion. Id; ORS 183.482(8)(b); see also Ogden Aviation v.

Crawford v. School District No. 7

68 Or. 388 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1913

In the case of Board of Education v. … In People v. Board of Education, 18 Mich. 409 , Mr.

State v. Askay

96 Or. App. 563 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 1989

State v. Caraher, 293 Or 741, 760 , 653 P2d 942 (1982). … The trial court found, in part: “We now approach one of the real interesting questions of this case, and that is the brown bag.

State ex rel. Palacios v. Rea

179 Or. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 6, 2002

See State ex rel Baker v. Cook, 171 Or App 719 , 16 P3d 1184 (2000). Judgment for filing fees of $167 reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Gunter v. North Wasco County School District Board of Education

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 22, 2021

with “Under governor Brown’s Executive Order 21-15 we are still under a state of emergency related to COVID-19. … Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 (1993) (quoting FCC v. Beach Communs., Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993)). Laws under review, including rules passed by a school board, are presumed valid. Harrah Indep. Sch.

Robinson v. SAIF Corp.

147 Or. App. 157 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 19, 1997

Dietz v. Ramuda, 130 Or App 397, 401 , 882 P2d 618 (1994), rev dismissed 321 Or 416 (1995). … Or Laws 1995, ch 332, § 66; Volk v. America West Airlines, 135 Or App 565 , 899 P2d 746 (1995), rev den 322 Or 645 (1996). 4 One Board member dissented.

Russell v. A & D Terminals

50 Or. App. 27 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 5, 1981

Neely v. SAIF, supra; Francoeur v. SAIF, 20 Or App 604 , 532 P2d 1148 (1975). … Ford v. SAIF, 7 Or App 549, 552 , 492 P2d 491 (1972).

U.S. Bank v. Pohrman

272 Or. App. 31 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 24, 2015

Because the board relied on its own decision in Frazer , and in light of our determination that the board’s analysis was incorrect, we must reverse and remand the board’s order in this case. See, e.g., Norris v. … See Rogers v.

Nielsen v. Employment Department

263 Or. App. 274 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 29, 2014

The relevant facts are not in dispute, and we state those facts “consistently with the board’s findings and the record that supports those findings.” Aguilar v. … We review the board’s order “for substantial evidence and errors of law, and to determine whether its analysis comports with substantial reason.” Campbell v.

State v. Langdon

151 Or. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 17, 1997

State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990). A facially apparent error is obvious and not reasonably in dispute. State v. Farmer, 317 Or 220, 224 , 856 P2d 623 (1993). … ORS 174.010; Kessler v. Board of Parole, 145 Or App 584, 589 , 931 P2d 801 (1997). If the intent of the statute or law is clear from the text and context, further analysis is unnecessary. PGE, 317 Or at 611.

SAIF Corp. v. Bales

274 Or. App. 700 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 2015

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. … See Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or 72, 77 , 948 P2d 722 (1997).

Voth v. Fisher

241 Or. 590 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1965

See Gregor et al v. City of Portland, 126 Or 49, 54 , 268 P 743 ; Camp Crook Ind. Dist. v. Shevling, 65 SD 14 , 31-32, 270 NW 518 ; School Dist. v. Callahan, 237 Wis 560, 576, 297 NW 407 ,135 ALR. 1081. … Fendall, 135 Or 145, 150 , 295 P 191 ; State v. Evans, 82 Or 46, 53 , 160 P 140 ; State v. Hall, 73 Or 231, 237 , 144 P 475 .

State v. Aman

194 Or. App. 463 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 4, 2004

In State v. … See Brown, 297 Or at 440 (“[Scientific evidence must not ‘assume a posture of mystic infallibility in the eyes of a jury of lay[persons].’ ”) (quoting United States v.

Greenslitt v. City of Lake Oswego

88 Or. App. 94 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 21, 1987

We hold that the Board was the proper forum for the attorney fees dispute under the facts of this case and, therefore, affirm. In SAIF v. … Group v.

Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores-Kroger Co.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 2024

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified. 670 Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores-Kroger Co. MOONEY, J. … Respondent (Fred Meyer) has petitioned for recon- sideration of our decision in Gage v. Fred Meyer Stores - Kroger Co., 329 Or App 360, 540 P3d 592 (2023).

SAIF Corp. v. Shipley

326 Or. 557 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1998

Newspaper Pub. v. … Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 383 , 823 P2d 956 (1991). The parties may not waive lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Wink v.

SAIF Corp. v. Dobbs

172 Or. App. 446 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 2001

They sought review of the Board’s order, and claimant cross-petitioned from the Board’s order, asserting that under ORS 656.308 or Industrial Indemnity Co. v. … Accordingly, the Board held that SAIF/J&J was responsible for claimant’s current low back condition. The scope of SAIF/J&J’s acceptance is a question of fact. SAIF v. Tull, 113 Or App 449 , 832 P2d 1271 (1992).

Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Department of Human Resources

297 Or. 562 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1984

See Harris v. … such a claim, see Sterling v.

Greenblatt v. Symantec Corp.

287 Or. App. 506 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2017

In Roberts v. … Bank v. Pohrman, 272 Or App 31 , 35 n 3, 354 P3d 722 , rev den, 358 Or 70 (2015) (citing Roberts v.

Department of Consumer & Business Services v. Muliro

359 Or. 736 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2016

The order of the board is reversed, and the case is remanded to the board for further proceedings. 738 DCBS v. Muliro NAKAMOTO, J. … As support, the board cited three Court of Appeals cases “dealing with ‘imputation’ between an employer and its insurer”: Anfilofieff v. SAIF, 52 Or App 127, 627 P2d 1274 (1981); Nix v.