Case law

Schlesinger v. City of Portland

200 Or. App. 593 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 13, 2005

See, e.g., Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry (A79626), 131 Or App 538, 540 , 886 P2d 1033 (1994), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 325 Or 185 , 935 P2d 411 (1997). … Shatzer, 337 Or 345, 349 , 97 P3d 1161 (2004) (quoting Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 449 , 648 P2d 1289 (1982)).

Endicott v. Digerness

103 Or. 555 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1922

See Herring-Hall-Marvin Co. v. Smith, 43 Or. 315 ( 72 Pac. 704 , 73 Pac. 340 ); McDaniel v. Chiaramonte, 61 Or. 403, 408 ( 122 Pac. 33 ); Francis v. Bohart, 76 Or. 1, 5 ( 143 Pac. 920 , 147 Pac. 755 , L. R. … The Comstock-Brown-Alm Company, the assignee of the purchasers, recognized that this amount was due by the payment of $191.28.

State v. Lewis

19 Or. 478 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1890

They are all resolvable into a single question, and that is, whether or not it was competent for the State to rely for conviction upon the evidence given by the witness Brown in relation to other emheLzloEaents than the particular … Ev., § 46; Mayer v. People, 80 N. Y. 364 ; Shipply v. People, 86 id. 375; 40 Am. Rep. 551 ; Pinckard v. State, 13 Tex. App. 468; Com. v. Shepard, 1 Allen, 575 . In Commonwealth v.

Shubert v. Blue Chips

151 Or. App. 710 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 24, 1997

As we held in our decision in Gallino v. … Shubert v. Department of Consumer and Business Services, CA No. A86479, dismissed May 17, 1995, citing ORS 183.400(1). We adhere to that holding.

Commonwealth Properties, Inc. v. Washington County

35 Or. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 1978

To require such a plan to contain precise and meticulous decision-making criteria, the Board contends, would defeat the very purpose of the plan. The Board contends that Board of Medical Examiners v. … Mintz, 233 Or 441 , 378 P2d 945 (1963); McCann v. OLCC, 27 Or App 487 , 556 P2d 973 (1976), rev den (1977); Sun Ray Drive-In Dairy v. OLCC, 20 Or App 91 , 530 P2d 887 (1975); and Sun Ray Dairy v.

Gallino v. Courtesy Pontiac-Buick-GMC

124 Or. App. 538 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 17, 1993

SAIF next argues that, even if it were mandatory for the director to promulgate a temporary rule, the Board lacks authority to remand the order on reconsideration. SAIF cites Pacheco-Gonzalez v. … By necessary implication, the Board has the power to remand the case to the director and must do so. See Ochoco Construction v. DLCD, 295 Or 422, 426 , 667 P2d 499 (1983). Reversed and remanded.

Jefferson v. Sam's Cafe

123 Or. App. 464 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 6, 1993

In Meyers v. … See Barr v. EBI Companies, 88 Or App 132 , 744 P2d 582 (1987). SAIF was not entitled to have the dispute reviewed by the Director.

Norman v. Van Elsberg

262 Or. 286 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 17, 1972

We shall adopt this treatment in our opinion. ③ Mann v. County of Maricopa, 104 Ariz 561, 456 P2d 931 (1969); Powers v. Isley, 66 Ariz 94, 183 P2d 880 (1947); Smith v. … Miller, 153 Colo 35, 384 P2d 738 (1963); Noble County Council et al v. State ex rel Fifer, 234 Ind 172, 125 NE2d 709 (1955); Bass v. County of Saline, 171 Neb 538, 106 NW2d 860 (1960).

SAIF Corp. v. Hoffman

193 Or. App. 750 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 2004

Willamette Industries, Inc. v. Titus, 151 Or App 76, 80 , 950 P2d 318 (1997) (citing Roseburg Forest Products v. Long, 325 Or 305, 309 , 937 P2d 517 (1997)). … (quoting Spurlock v. International Paper Co., 89 Or App 461, 465 , 749 P2d 611 (1988)).

Eilers v. McCormick

121 Or. 309 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1927

BROWN, J. It is evident from the assignments of error that this case presents questions of fact only. … The testimony of the plaintiff -is to the effect that he was voted off the board of directors of Eilers Music House, and that an attempt was made to put him off the board of directors of Graves & Company.

Guerrero-Perez v. Kelly

370 Or. 823 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2023

Kelly, 370 Or 645, 523 P3d 84 (2022) and Jones v. Brown, 370 Or 649, 523 P3d 82 (2022). A third similar case, Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604, 523 P3d 604 (2022), was later also certified to the Supreme Court. … We held petitioner’s petition for review in abeyance pending decisions in Huggett v. Kelly, 370 Or 645, 523 P3d 84 (2022), and Jones v. Brown, 370 Or 649, 523 P3d 82 (2022).

Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC

374 Or. 375 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2025

376 Adelsperger v. … Barnett Resorts, LLC (defendant) has petitioned for reconsideration of our decision in Adelsperger v.

Compton v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

301 Or. 641 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1986

In Mansfield v. … In Maumary v.

Precision Castparts Corp - PCC Structurals v. Cramer

316 Or. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 2021

Similarly, our references to the board’s order include the ALJ’s order that the board adopted and supplemented. 20 Precision Castparts Corp - PCC Structurals v. … That standard follows from the statutes and the board’s administrative rule governing the 22 Precision Castparts Corp - PCC Structurals v. Cramer review process.

Reynolds Metals v. Rogers

157 Or. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 1998

See also Norstadt v. … Rather, the ALJ and the Board applied the test discussed in Beneficiaries of Strametz v. Spectrum Motorwerks, 135 Or App 67, 74 , 897 P2d 335 , mod 138 Or App 9 , 906 P2d 825 (1995).

Whitlock v. Klamath County School District

158 Or. App. 464 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 17, 1999

Bank of Newport v. … Assn. v.

FSLIC v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 389 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 16, 1990

A preliminary issue in this case is whether plaintiff is barred from seeking relief for 1986 under ORS 306.115 because it appealed to and obtained relief from the board of equalization. In J. R. Simplot Co. v. … Esco Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 307 Or 639 , 772 P2d 413 (1989).

Garcia v. SAIF Corp.

187 Or. App. 51 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 20, 2003

Allie v. SAIF, 79 Or App 284, 289 [, 719 P2d 47 ] (1986).” The ALJ upheld SAIF’s denial, and the board adopted and affirmed the ALJ’s order. … See Dietz v.

Peterson v. State Compensation Department

257 Or. 369 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1970

The plaintiff then timely filed a reqnest for a review of the hearing officer’s order by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. On his appeal to the Board plaintiff was represented by counsel. … The Court of Appeals relied on our decision in Printz v. State Compensation Department, 253 Or 148 , 453 P2d 655 (1969), but we think that reliance was unwarranted.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Haws

310 Or. 741 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1990

Before the formal complaint was filed, the State Professional Responsibility Board had petitioned this court for the temporary suspension of the accused during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. … In re Brown, 298 Or 285, 297 , 692 P2d 107 (1984) (absent briefing, argument, and authority, court decides Bar proceeding does not come within the meaning of “administration of justice”).