Case law

Hicks v. SAIF Corp.

194 Or. App. 655 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 2004

As we said in Khrul v. Foremans Cleaners, 194 Or App 125 , 93 P3d 820 (2004), in reviewing the director’s order on reconsideration, the board is not free to determine a claimant’s impairment. … (“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, only the attending physician at the time of closure may make findings regarding the worker’s impairment for the purpose of evaluating the worker’s disability.”); Koitzsch v.

Foreman v. School District No. 25

81 Or. 587 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1916

McComb, 18 Colo. 240 ( 32 Pac. 424 ); Hull v. Independent Dist. of Aplington, 82 Iowa, 686 ( 46 N. W. 1053 , 48 N. W. 82 ,10 L. R. A. 273); People ex rel. v. Board of Education, 174 N. Y. 169 ( 66 N. … E. 674 ); Kellison v. School Dist., 20 Mont. 153 ( 50 Pac. 421 ); Butcher v. Charles, 95 Tenn. 532 ( 32 S. W. 631 ); Arnold v. School Dist., 78 Mo. 226; Richards v. School Dist. Board, 78 Or. 621 ( 153 Pac. 482 , L. R.

Zimmerle v. Childers

67 Or. 465 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1913

In York v. … But, in cases of doubt, courts are inclined to construe the transaction as a mortgage: Spalding v. Brown, 36 Or. 160 ( 50 Pac. 185 ). 8, 9.

SAIF Corp. v. Traner

270 Or. App. 67 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 25, 2015

So, too, has the board. In SAIF v. Stephens, 247 Or App 107, 109 , 269 P3d 62 (2011), a claimant asserted a claim for a new or omitted condition of coccydynia. … SAIF v. Allen, 320 Or 192, 211-12 , 881 P2d 773 (1994).

SPRINGFIELD UTILITY BD. v. Emerald PUD

339 Or. 631 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2005

See PGE v. … In Wasco County P.U.D. v.

Hibbs v. Sedgwick CMS (A180280)

340 Or. App. 421 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 14, 2025

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. … In Icenhower v.

Zimmerman v. State of Oregon Department of Justice

983 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 31, 1997

Williams v. Board of Educ., 972 F.Supp. 248, 250 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (filing complaint with U.S. Dep’t of Education Office of Civil Rights not equivalent to filing with the EEOC or a state or local agency). … See Irwin v.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Anlauf

52 Or. App. 115 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 11, 1981

In SAIF v. … It follows that we disagree with SAIF that direct Board review is the exclusive method of review in this case. Circuit court review is also available pursuant to ORS 656.386(1). SAIF v. Huggins, supra; see also, Moe v.

Cross v. Kloster Cruise Lines, Ltd.

897 F. Supp. 1304 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 11, 1995

Plaintiff traveled to San Juan, Puerto Rico, where she boarded the Windward on April 24, 1994, for passage to Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff alleges that during the cruise, she was bitten by a brown recluse spider. … The Forum Selection Clause In Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v.

Franklin v. Employment Department

254 Or. App. 656 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2013

Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P2d 119 (1994); Johnson v. … See, e.g., Bunnell v.

City of Eugene v. Department of Revenue

15 Or. Tax 1 · Oregon Tax Court · May 12, 1998

The Supreme Court addressed this issue in City of Portland v. … . *4 Hopper v.

Daugherty v. SAIF Corp.

258 Or. App. 512 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 11, 2013

Simply, the board, has exclusive authority, under ORS 656.704, over “matters concerning a claim ***.” See, e.g., Martin v. … .”); Howard v.

Fleming v. SAIF

302 Or. App. 543 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 4, 2020

In that order, the board affirmed respondent SAIF’s denial of his occupational dis- ease claim for a right shoulder condition. The board con- cluded, applying Gilkey v. … This court has treated the determinations made after the board has approved a DCS like any other award or decision of the board. In Southwest Forest Industries v.

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.

Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Clatsop County

74 Or. 250 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1915

In proceedings before a board of equalization to correct the assessment of the property of taxpayers the rules of practice in civil actions or suits do not apply: Poppleton v. … make it conclusively appear that the method by which the assessor arrived at the result complained of was incorrect, and that the assessment does not represent the true cash value of the property assessed: Oregon Coal Co. v.

State v. Templeton

23 Or. App. 39 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 1975

See, State v. Swain/Goldsmith, 267 Or 527 , 517 P2d 684 (1974). See also, A. v. A., 15 Or App 353, 356-57 , 514 P2d 358 , Sup Ct review denied (1974), and Brown v. Brown, 4 Or App 621, 625 , 481 P2d 643 (1971). In A. v. … A. and Brown v. Brown, both supra, the same contention concerning similar comments by trial judges was considered and rejected by this *43 court. ① Here there were no formal findings of fact made by the court.

Wasco County v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local No. 2752

30 Or. App. 863 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 1977

Assn. v. Sch. … Brusco Towboat v. State Land Bd., 30 Or App 509 , — P2d — (1977); Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761 , 566 P2d 904 (1977); Smith v. Peet, 29 Or App 625 , 564 P2d 1083 , 30 Or App 245 , 567 P2d 125 (1977); McCrae v.

O. & C. R. R. v. Croisan

22 Or. 393 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1892

(Cooley on Taxation, 419; Desty on Taxation, 496; Getchell v. Supervisors, 51 Iowa, 107 ; People v. Nichols, 49 Ill. 517 ; McConkey v. Smith, 73 Ill. 313 .) … Co. v. Washington Co. 30 Gratt. 471 ; People v. Nichols, 49 Ill. 517 .) By the law of this state, for the purposes of assessment and taxation, there are only three classes of real property.

Spurger v. SAIF Corp.

292 Or. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 6, 2018

This is the second time that we have considered a board order rejecting claimant's request for an award for chronic condition impairment. See Spurger v. SAIF , 266 Or. App. 183 , 337 P.3d 883 (2014). … We remanded the case for the board to further explain its reasoning. Spurger , 266 Or. App. at 195 , 337 P.3d 883 . Pending remand, we issued our opinion in Godinez v. SAIF , 269 Or. App. 578 , 346 P.3d 530 (2015).

Beaudry v. Winchester Plywood Company

255 Or. 503 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 13, 1970

Co. v. Cooper, 3 Storey 168 , 53 Del 168, 166 A2d 723 (1960); Giambattista v. Thomas A. Edison, 32 NJ Super 103, 107 A2d 801 (1954); and National Zinc Company v. Hainline, 360 P2d 236 (Okla 1961). … See Matter of Detenbeck v. General Motors Corp., 309 NY 558 , 132 NE2d 840 (1956); Matter of Dorman v. New York State Dept. of Public Works, 22 App Div 2d 725, 253 NYS2d 243 (1964); and Matter of Conroy v.