Case law

Kaiel v. NCE Cultural Homestay Institute

129 Or. App. 471 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 10, 1994

To determine the relationship between the parties, the Board must first apply the “right to control” test. Woody v. Waibel, 276 Or 189, 196 , 554 P2d 492 (1976). … Livesley Co. v.

Freightliner Corp. v. Arnold

142 Or. App. 98 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 3, 1996

In evaluating whether the claim arose out of and in the course of employment, the Board cited the unitary work-connection test articulated by the Supreme Court in Norpac Foods, Inc. v. … McClendon v. Nabisco Brands, Inc., 77 Or App 412, 417 , 713 P2d 647 (1986).

Mathis v. State Accident Insurance Fund

10 Or. App. 139 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 1972

Co. v. Industrial Acc. … Under the Occupational Disease Law findings of fact by the medical review board are not reviewable; legal issues are. In this context, the court in Beaudry v.

Kerns v. Lee

142 F. 985 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Jan 22, 1906

Stark v. Starr, 6 Wall. 402 , 18 L. Ed. 925 ; Silver v. Ladd, 7 Wall. 219 , 19 L. Ed. 138 ; Johnson v. Towslev, 13 Wall. 72 , 20 L. Ed. 485 . … Michigan Land & Lumber Co. v. Rust, 168 U. S. 589 , 18 Sup. Ct. 208, 42 L. Ed. 591 ; Brown v. Hitchcock, 173 U. S. 473 , 19 Sup. Ct. 485, 43 L. Ed. 772 .

State v. Jackson

296 Or. 430 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1984

What I have to say hereafter about the plurality opinion in Texas v. Brown, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983), is unnecessary to a decision in the case at bar. … State v. Louis, supra . [5] I take the facts from Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.

Barrett v. Belleque

344 Or. 91 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 7, 2008

The court relied upon Penrod/Brown v. … Penrod /Brown, 283 Or at 28 .

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.

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.

Atwell v. Schmitt

111 Or. 96 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1924

In the transaction involved here there was not such an exercise of judgment by the directors as to the value of the options as the statute intended should be exercised by a board of directors in the purchase of property or … J., and Burnett and Brown, JJ., concur.

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.

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.

Watts v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry. Co.

88 Or. 192 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1918

Returning in the evening they boarded the train at Rainier and when it arrived near Goble, the brakeman Burgess called that station and just before the train came to a stop the three men raised up from their seats in the … The language and conduct of counsel will justify a reversal only when connected with some judicial error on the part of the trial judge: Nelson v. Brown & McCabe, 81 Or. 472 ( 159 Pac. 1163 ); State v.

Mansfield v. CAPLENER BROTHERS

3 Or. App. 448 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 17, 1970

Eemanded for further proceedings. ① In Beagle v. … In Sahnow v. Fireman’s Fund Ins.

Bondick v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 2, 2019

The Amended Complaint reasserts plaintiffs claims against the Board of Governors and also names the Chair of the Board of Governors, the Chair of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Chair of the … Wilson v, Lynch, 835, 5.3d 1083, 1090 & n.2.

Horizon Air Industries, Inc. v. Davis-Warren

266 Or. App. 388 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2014

The board relied heavily on K-Mart v. … Ordinarily, the question of how to resolve competing expert medical opinions is within the discretion of the board. Armstrong v.

County of Linn v. State of Oregon

319 Or. App. 288 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 27, 2022

See Moro v. … James v. State of Oregon, 308 County of Linn v.

Zurich Insurance v. Diversified Risk Management

300 Or. 47 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1985

In Southwest Forest Industries v. … In Stroh v.

Jung Nyeo Lee v. State

290 Or. App. 310 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 14, 2018

ORS 30.275(6) ; Flug v. University of Oregon , 335 Or. 540 , 554, 73 P.3d 917 (2003). … Brown v. Portland School Dist. No. 1 , 291 Or. 77 , 81, 628 P.2d 1183 (1981).

Smith v. Douglas County

93 Or. App. 503 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 19, 1988

The propriety of the Board’s action, however, does not concern how the Board exercised its authority but, rather, whether the Board had authority to do what it did. … That denial was appealed and, on remand from the Board, the permit was approved. 2 This case does not involve an issue which the reviewing body has a duty to review and decide. See 1000 Friends of Oregon v.

Labor Ready v. Mogensen

275 Or. App. 491 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 16, 2015

Finally, citing SAIF v. … As we said in Mills v.