Case law

Stowe v. School District No. 8-C

240 Or. 526 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1965

Plaintiff, in writing, asked the district school board to put in its records the reason for not renewing his contract. A statute, later quoted, required the board to record its reasons. … Perry v. Oregon Liquor Commission, 1947, 180 Or 495, 498 , 177 P2d 406 . We cannot agree with plaintiff’s reading of the statute.

Folkers v. Lincoln County School District

205 Or. App. 619 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 10, 2006

As we said in [McNair v. … Second, he contends that the board did not explain its rejection of its position in a prior case, Anderson v.

Aguilar v. Employment Department

258 Or. App. 453 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 5, 2013

Except where noted otherwise, the pertinent facts are not disputed and we therefore describe them consistently with the board’s findings and the record that supports those findings. McDowell v. … Relying on Opp v.

Northwest Greentree, Inc. v. Cervantes-Ochoa

113 Or. App. 186 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 20, 1992

We conclude that the Board did apply the correct standard, which is the permanent employment relation test. Kolar v. B & C Contractors, 36 Or App 65, 71 , 583 P2d 562 (1978). … The Board applied that test, under which the key inquiry is “the extent to which the claimant’s work outside the state is temporary.” Hobson v.

State v. Goss

219 Or. App. 645 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 7, 2008

The Supreme Court elaborated on those statutes in State v. … State v. Shumway, 124 Or *651 App 131,133, 861 P2d 384 (1993), rev den, 318 Or 459 (1994). That reliability is assessed using a three-factor test. State v.

Wattenbarger v. Boise Cascade Corp.

301 Or. 12 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1986

Apparently the Court of Appeals assumed that the Board’s rule binds not only the Board but also the courts. … circumstances of the individual case must predominate and the guidelines will be used only to the extent that their intrinsic persuasiveness assists the court in its independent assessment function,” citing generally, Harwell v.

Saif Corp. v. Bryant

173 Or. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 4, 2001

We explained in SAIF v. … See Skochenko v.

Volp v. Saylor

42 Or. 546 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1903

court of record entered without jurisdiction of the person or authority of law, when it SO' appears upon its-faee, may be vacated at any time by virtue of the power inherent in the court, and even upon its own motion: Ladd v. … Mason, 10 Or. 308 ; White v. Ladd, 41 Or. 324 ( 68 Pac. 739 ).

Josephine County v. PERB

316 Or. App. 150 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 2021

Affirmed. 152 Josephine County v. PERB DeVORE, P. J. … Service Employees Int’l Union Local 503 v. DAS, 183 Or App 594, 606, 54 P3d 1043 (2002).

State v. Chandler

360 Or. 323 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 22, 2016

State v. Lupoli, 348 Or 346, 357, 234 P3d 117 (2010); see also State v. … See State v.

Valleur v. McGee

42 Or. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 1, 1979

Consequently, the holding of a hearing is not a condition precedent to the Board’s jurisdiction but only to the Board’s power to confine a defendant. … Newton v. Brooks, 246 Or 484, 489-90 , 426 P2d 446 (1967). The mechanism for determining suitability for release is the hearing.

SAIF Corp. v. Webb

181 Or. App. 205 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 2002

SAIF argues that the Board erred when it assigned responsibility to SAIF under an “exception” to the presumption established in Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Kearns, 70 Or App 583 , 690 P2d 1068 (1984). … See Conner v. B&S Logging, 153 Or App 354 [, 957 P2d 159 ] (1998)* * *.

School District No. 16-R v. McCormmach

238 Or. 51 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1964

See Cline v. Knight, 111 Colo 8, 137 P2d 680 ; Board of Trustees of Stanford Graded Common School Dist. v. Powell, 145 Ky 93, 140 SW 67 . … We held in Smith v.

Niccum v. Southcoast Lumber Co.

123 Or. App. 472 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 6, 1993

The Board relied on its decision in Stanley Meyers, 43 Van Natta 2643 (1991), and its interpretation of ORS 656.327 and ORS 656.704. In Meyers v. … In Jefferson v.

Lopez v. Mills

249 Or. App. 674 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 9, 2012

See Peek v. … Smith v.

Sprague v. United States Bakery, Saif Corp.

200 Or. App. 569 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 13, 2005

Sprague v. United States Bakery, 199 Or App 435 , 112 P3d 362 (2005). … We disagreed with the board’s statement, relying, in part, on our holding in Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Crompton, 150 Or App 531, 536 , 946 P2d 1171 (1997).

Shaw v. Rebholz

152 Or. App. 328 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 4, 1998

Police Officers v. … See, e.g., Santos v. Caryall Transport, 152 Or App 322, 326-27 , 954 P2d 187 (1998).

Carlson v. Wheeler-Hallock Co.

171 Or. 349 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1943

Co. v. Osby, (C. C. … of skid-boards.

Noyes v. Department of Revenue

7 Or. Tax 325 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 30, 1978

As pointed out by the Oregon Supreme Court in Anaconda Company v. … Such an election was approved in Nepom v.

Ensign v. Marion County

140 Or. App. 114 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 27, 1996

In Prentiss & Carlisle v. … See also Benitez-Allende v.