Case law

Portland v. Parker

69 Or. 271 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1914

v. … [Mass.] 172; Brown v. County Commissioners, 21 Pa. 42 ; State v. Fitzporter, 17 Mo. App. 273 ; Fosdick v. Village of Perrysburg, 14 Ohio St. 485 , 486; Sedgwick, Statutory Law, 123.”

McCleery v. Woodmen of the World

136 Or. 407 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1930

Board, 123 Cal. 24 ( 55 P. 576 ). The doctrine appeals to us as reasonable and sound.” See also Freitas v. Freitas, 31 Cal. App. 16 ( 159 P. 611 ); Jory v. Supreme Council, 105 Cal. 20 ( 38 P. 524 , 26 L. R. … Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

Ross v. Springfield School District No. 19

56 Or. App. 197 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 8, 1982

As we pointed out in Lincoln County School Dist. v. … Megdal v. Board of Dental Examiners, supra, 288 Or at 299 ; see Marquam Investment Corporation v. Beers, 47 Or App 711, 714 , 615 P2d 1064 , rev den 290 Or 249 (1980).

State v. Standard Oil Co.

61 Or. 438 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1912

The rule is stated in the late case of Brown-Forman Co. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 217 U. S. 563 , at page 575 (30 Sup. Ct. 578, at page 580: 54 L. … .” — citing Brown v. Huston, 114 U. S. 622 (5 Sup. Ct. 1091: 29 L. Ed. 257 ) ; Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676 ( 25 L. Ed. 754 ).

In re the Marriage of Hadley

77 Or. App. 295 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 22, 1986

Abraham v. Abraham, 248 Or 163, 164 , 432 P2d 797 (1967); Brown v. Brown, 28 Or App 535, 537 , 559 P2d 1332 (1977). … See Brown v. Brown, supra. The question is whether the trial court had the authority, without a change of circumstances, to order the Secretary to make payments directly to wife from husband’s retirement pay.

Henley v. Employment Department

284 Or. App. 781 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 12, 2017

We take the facts from the board’s findings and from the undisputed evidence in the record that is not inconsistent with those findings. See Warkentin v. Employment Dept., 245 Or App 128, 130 , 261 P3d 72 (2011). … Kercher v. Employment Dept., 250 Or App 409, 411 , 280 P3d 1040 (2012).

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.

Kari v. Jefferson County School District No. 509-J

120 Or. App. 99 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 1993

The Fair Dismissal Appeals Board (FDAB) reversed the dismissal. The district sought our review, and we reversed FDAB’s decision. Jefferson County School Dist. No. 509-J v. … See Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 300 Or 507, 519 , 716 P2d 724 (1986).

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).

Kollock v. Barnard

116 Or. 694 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1926

J. 772, § 415; Gibbons v. Hood River Irr. Dist., 66 Or. 208, 210 ( 133 Pac. 772 ); City of Astoria v. Cornelius (Or.), 240 Pac. 233 . *703 Section 7326, Or. … This question was considered by this court in the case of Noble v.

Horner's Market, Inc. v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District

256 Or. 124 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1970

This, we understand, is the import of Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 US 105 , 87 S Ct 1549 , 18 L Ed2d 650 (1967). … Plaintiffs point specifically to the elaboration of the principle in Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 US 105 , 87 S Ct 1549 , 18 L Ed 2d 650 (1967); Kramer v.

Gleason v. Oregon Racing Commission

233 Or. App. 164 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 6, 2010

In Guzman v. … See Cansino v.

Wise v. Hays

74 Or. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 3, 1985

See Esperum v. Board of Parole, 296 Or 789 , 681 P2d 1128 (1984); Harris v. Board of Parole, 47 Or App 289 , 614 P2d 602 , rev den 290 Or 157 (1980); ORS 144.335. … State ex rel LeVasseur v. Merten, 297 Or 577, 580 , 686 P2d 366 (1984). Having failed to seek judicial review of the Board’s order, plaintiff is not now entitled to relief by writ of mandamus. Rosboro Lumber Co. v.

Giltner v. SAIF

325 Or. App. 566 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 26, 2023

Claimant now seeks our review of the board’s order. “We review the board’s statutory interpretation for errors of law.” Baker v. Liberty Northwest Ins. … In Landriscina v.

Smithee v. Employment Department

228 Or. App. 346 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 2009

Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142 , 881 P2d 119 (1994). See also Jones v. … We explained in Freeman v.

Alvarez v. SAIF

345 Or. App. 632 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 17, 2025

Reviewing the board’s legal conclusions for errors of law, ORS 183.482(8)(a); Curry Educational Service Dist. v. … However, unlike in Greenbriar, the record supports the board’s finding that SAIF did not have 636 Alvarez v.

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Miller

88 Or. App. 286 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 12, 1987

The Board said: “We recently decided that when there is a question regarding whether a request for Board review was timely mailed to the Board, proof of such mailing must conform to the requirements of OAR 438-05-040(4)(b … Fire/Police Retire. v. PERB, 62 Or App 777 , 662 P2d 729 (1983). All that the statute requires to perfect review before the Board is the mailing of a request for review.

Campbell v. Employment Department

245 Or. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 21, 2011

Simpson v. Board of Parole, 237 Or App 661, 663 , 241 P3d 347 (2010). We agree with claimant that EAB’s order in this case does not comport with substantial reason. … McDowell v. Employment Dept. 348 Or 605, 612 , 236 P3d 722 (2010).

State v. Reed

235 Or. App. 470 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 2010

See, e.g., State v. … State v.

Baker v. Liberty Northwest Insurance

257 Or. App. 205 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 2013

The board rejected claimant’s contention that the claim was timely under this court’s opinions in Ahlberg v. SAIF, 199 Or App 271 , 111 P3d 778 (2005), and Kepford v. … Bohemia, Inc. v. McKillop, 112 Or App 261 , 828 P2d 1041 (1992). The start of the limitation period is suspended until the last of the events occurs. Interstate Metal v.