Case law

Vanderzanden v. Lowell School District No. 71

369 F. Supp. 67 · District Court, D. Oregon · Sep 5, 1973

Karp v. Becken, 477 F.2d 171, 174 (1973); see also Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). … Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sinderman, 408 U.S. 593 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Hayes v. Cape Henlopen School Dist., supra.

DiBrito v. SAIF Corp.

319 Or. 244 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1994

SAIF appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board). Relying on SAIF v. … We allowed review and now reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, reverse the order of the Board, and remand the case to the Board. In Mathel v.

Hendryx v. School District No. 4

148 Or. 83 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1934

R. 1033; Ansorge v. Green Bay, 198 Wis. 320 ( 224 N. W. 119 ); Backie v. Cromwell Consol. School Dist., 186 Minn. 38 ( 242 N. W. 389 ); Guilford School Tp. v. Roberts, 28 Ind. App. 355 ( 62 N. E. 711 ); Short v. … J. 401, 403, §§ 337, 338 and 340; Ansorge v. Green Bay, supra; Backie v. Cromwell Consol. School Dist., supra; Guilford School Tp. v. Roberts, *89 supra; Funston v.

Croman Corp. v. Serrano

163 Or. App. 136 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 29, 1999

Altamirano v. Woodburn Nursery, Inc., 133 Or App 16 , 889 P2d 1305 (1995); Evanite Fiber Corp. v. Striplin, 99 Or App 353, 357 , 781 P2d 1262 (1989). … SAIF v. Beldon, 155 Or App 568, 574 , 904 P2d 300 (1998), rev den 328 Or 330 (1999) (footnote omitted).

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.

Leaton v. State Accident Insurance Fund

27 Or. App. 669 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 13, 1976

The Workmen’s Compensation Board reversed the hearings referee. Thereafter the circuit court reversed the Board and reinstated the order of the referee. … See, Palm Gardens, Inc. v. OLCC, 15 Or App 20 , 514 P2d 888 , Sup Ct review denied (1974). We agree with the Board’s conclusions.

Burkitt v. School District No. 1

195 Or. 471 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1952

Caddo Parish School Board, 57 F Supp 508 ; Wayland v. Board of School Directors, 43 Wash 441, 86 P 642 ; Wilson v. Board of Education, 233 Ill 464, 84 NE 697 , 15 LRA (ns) 1136; Antell v. … In Coggins v. Board of Education, Wayland v. Board of School Directors, Wilson v. Board of Education, and Wilson 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.

Jackson County v. Wehren

186 Or. App. 555 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 19, 2003

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 206 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). Before this court, employer renews its attack on the board’s acceptance of Grant’s opinion instead of Thompson’s. … Palmer v. SAIF, 78 Or App 151, 157 , 714 P2d 1102 (1986).

Vsetecka v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

337 Or. 502 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 14, 2004

Vsetecka v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 183 Or App 239 , 51 P3d 688 (2002). We hold that the board and the Court of Appeals read the notice statute too narrowly and that claimant’s notice was sufficient. … Stevens v. Czerniak, 336 Or 392, 401 , 84 P3d 140 (2004). Context includes other provisions of the same statute. Id.

State v. Kennedy

45 Or. App. 911 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 14, 1980

In State v. … As we observed in State v. Evans, 16 Or.

Toole v. EBI Companies

314 Or. 102 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1992

See Chocktoot v. … In Johnson v.

SAIF Corp. v. Banderas

252 Or. App. 136 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 29, 2012

See Office Depot, Inc. v. … ); Roseburg Forest Products v.

Columbia Forest Products v. Woolner

177 Or. App. 639 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 31, 2001

The Board upheld the denial on the basis of the employer’s express acceptance of the combined condition. Citing Croman Corp. v. … Because the “Board did not ‘provide a sufficient explanation to allow a reviewing court to examine the agency’s action,’ ” SAIF v.

PETERS v. McKAY

195 Or. 412 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1951

Sprague et al, 166 Or 320 , 111 P2d 1031 ; Engle v. State Land Board, 164 Or 109 , 99 P2d 1018 ; and see United Contracting Co. v. Duby, 134 Or 1 , 292 P 309 . … Hanger v. Abbott, supra. In Brown v. Hiatts, 15 Wallace 177, the plaintiff, a citizen and resident of Virginia, loaned money to the defendant, a resident of Kansas, in 1860.

Jansen v. Atiyeh

302 Or. 314 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1986

This case began as an action by motel and hotel operators, taxi drivers and caterers in the Ashland area against the Oregon State Board of Higher Education (defendant 1 ) acting by and through Southern Oregon State College … The order of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. 1 Although many persons originally were made defendants, the State Board of Higher Education is the party against which attorney fees were awarded. 2 It is interesting to note

Amfac, Inc. v. Garcia-Maciel

98 Or. App. 88 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 1989

v. under ORS 656.298(1). … Gooderham v. AFSD, 64 Or App 104, 109 , 667 P2d 551 (1983).

Davis v. Lampert

174 Or. App. 383 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 23, 2001

See Weidner v. Armenakis, 154 Or App 12, 17 , 959 P2d 623 (1998), withdrawn by order July 17, 1998, reasoning reaffirmed and readopted in Merrill v. … Hamel v. Johnson, 173 Or App 448, 456 , 25 P3d 314 (2001) (adopting “some evidence” standard for habeas corpus review of Board decisions made under ORS 144.125(3) (1991)). We conclude that it did.

Vip's Restaurant v. Krause

89 Or. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 13, 1988

We agree with the Board’s determination and conclude that employer was required to pay benefits for temporary total disability through the date of the June 6,1986, determination order. As we held in Noffsinger v. … SAIF v. Maddox, 295 Or 448, 454 , 667 P2d 529 (1983).

State v. Hall

166 Or. App. 348 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 2000

See State v. … See State v.