Case law

Bailey v. Morrison-Knudsen Company

5 Or. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 17, 1971

As we pointed out in Swanson v. … Martin v. Douglas Co. Lumber, 4 Or App 69, 71-72 , 476 P2d 940 (1970); Melius v. Boise Cascade Corp., 2 Or App 206 , 466 P2d 624 (1970); Moore v. U. S. Plywood Corp., 1 Or App 343 , 462 P2d 453 (1969).

State ex rel. Virginia Glass Products Corp. v. Glens Falls Insurance

254 Or. 340 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1969

Dist. v. Gen. Ins. Co., 240 Or 103 , 399 P2d 351 , we pointed out that the affirmative action of a public body as required by ORS 279.526 is the resolution of the Board. … Dist. v. Gen. Ins. Co., supra. We, therefore, hold that a public body may not retroactively start the time running. To hold otherwise would be to open the door for a public body to circumvent the statute.

State v. Fix

83 Or. App. 107 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 17, 1986

We hold that the search was justified under the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement, see State v. Brown, 301 Or 268 , 721 P2d 1357 (1986), and State v. … State v. Brown, supra, 301 Or at 279. Defendant does not dispute that the truck was lawfully stopped or that it was mobile at the time of the stop.

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.

Saif Corp. v. Allen

320 Or. 192 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1994

Ohlig v. … Because the Board’s action is within the legislative policy behind ORS 656.262(6), the Board did not err. 22 Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist., supra, 290 Or at 227 .

State v. McKay

515 P.2d 183 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 29, 1973

State v. Fogle, 254 Or. 268, 270-275 , 459 P.2d 873 (1969). … See State v. Woodward, 1 Or. App. 338 , 462 P.2d 685 (1969). Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] ORS 41.360(15). [2] ORS 41.360(14). [3] ORS 43.330(5); 43.370.

Harvey v. SAIF Corp.

286 Or. App. 539 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2017

The board, however, adopted and affirmed the ALJ’s order, supplemented by its own reasoning. Citing SAIF v. … See Arms v.

Fred Meyer Stores v. Godfrey

218 Or. App. 496 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 19, 2008

See SAIF v. … The board cited our decisions in Christensen v. Cober, 206 Or App 719 , 138 P3d 918 (2006), and J. Arlie Bryant, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Comm., 132 Or App 565 , 889 P2d 383 , rev den, 321 Or 47 (1995).

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.

Compensation of Korter v. EBI Companies, Inc.

46 Or. App. 43 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 5, 1980

Recently, this court in James v. … See Jones v. Emanuel Hospital, 280 Or 147 , 570 P2d 70 (1977); Williams v. SAIF, 31 Or App 1301 , 572 P2d 658 (1977).

SAIF Corp. v. Stephens

247 Or. App. 107 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 14, 2011

As we recently explained in Crawford v. … .” *113 SAIF contends that the board’s conclusion is not consistent with our opinion in Young v. Hermiston Good Samaritan, 223 Or App 99, 104 , 194 P3d 857 (2008).

Christman v. SAIF Corp.

181 Or. App. 191 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 2002

In Reynolds Metals v. … Thus, we do not understand how the Board found that the medical opinions were persuasive without resolving that issue. See, e.g., SAIF v.

Warren v. MARION COUNTY

222 Or. 307 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1960

State v. Lermeny, 213 Or 574 , 326 P2d 768 (1958); Kempien v. Board of Com’rs. of Ramsey County, 160 Minn 69, 199 NW 442 (1924); 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3rd ed), §4925. … In the creation of an administrative board it is not necessary to prescribe the specific procedure under which it must operate. Peninsula Corporation v. United States, supra; Whittle v.

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.

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.

Owens v. School Dist. No. 8R of Umatilla County

3 Or. App. 294 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 13, 1970

The teachers have an express statutory right to be informed of renewal or nonrenewal by March 15 and this right cannot be transgressed by the board. The board may not enact any rules which violate this statute. Laing v. … School District No. 10, 190 Or 358, 373 , 224 P2d 923 (1950), and Crawford v.

Baar v. Fairview Training Center

139 Or. App. 196 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 21, 1996

However, on July 9, 1993, the referee, relying on Lorenzen v. SAIF, 79 Or App 751 , 719 P2d 1336 , rev den 301 Or 667 (1986), and Maxine V. … Hicks v.

Meyer v. Lord

37 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 6, 1978

In 1000 Friends v. … Rutherford v.

Coles Valley Church v. Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals

District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 27, 2020

See Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals’ Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 8 (“LUBA’s Mot. Dismiss”). … P. 12(h)(3); see also Pistor v.

SAIF Corp. v. Walker

260 Or. App. 327 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 2013

See SAIF v. … .”); SAIF v.