Case law

Salem Sand & Gravel Co. v. Olcott

97 Or. 253 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1920

It is true that in Springfield Milling Company v. … In State ex rel. v.

University of Oregon Chapter, AFT v. University of Oregon

92 Or. App. 614 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 24, 1988

C-66-82, 6 PECBR 5604 (1983); PSU Chapter of AAUP, et al. v. State System of Higher Education, Case No. C-381, 3 PECBR 1678 (1978); OSU Chapter of AAUP, et al. v. State Board of Higher Education, Case No. … We said in OSEA v.

Barrier v. Employment Division

29 Or. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 9, 1977

In Skookum Co., Inc. v. … See Zdanok v. Glidden Company, supra.

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.

EBI Insurance v. Chandler

112 Or. App. 275 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 8, 1992

Employer contends that there is controlling case law interpreting ORS 656.319 that holds that a request for hearing is filed only when received, Norton v. … Employer did not challenge the substantive validity of the rule at the Board level; therefore, we will not consider the argument for the first time on judicial review. Northwest Advancement v.

Ybarra v. Dominguez Family Enterprises, Inc.

322 Or. App. 798 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 30, 2022

All of the share- holders were employees of DFE and members of its board, except for plaintiff, who resigned her position in 2011. … v.

Martinez-Munoz v. Kendal Merchandising

323 Or. App. 11 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 7, 2022

an occupational disease claim at the time of the new/omitted 14 Martinez-Munoz v. … The board affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s order. On judicial review, claimant does not dispute that claim preclusion is applicable in the workers’ compensation context, see Drews v.

KAISER PERMANENTE v. Bonfiglio

241 Or. App. 287 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 2, 2011

See Dietz v. … Board of Parole, 232 Or App 75, 84-86 , 220 P3d 772 (2009); Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 206 , 752 P2d 312 (1988).

SAIf Corp. v. Alton

171 Or. App. 491 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 20, 2000

See SAIF v. … See SAIF v.

Gleason v. International Multifoods Corp.

282 Or. 253 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 2, 1978

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 , 57 S.Ct. 904 (1937). Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 , 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936). * * In response, defendants cite Zidell v. … United Electric Co. of New Jersey, 70 NJ Eq 616, 61 A 1061 (NJ 1905), as well as Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 (1937), and Ashwander v.

Laing v. School District No. 10

190 Or. 358 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1950

In State ex rel. v. … See Stoddard v. King County, 22 Wash. 2d 868 , 158 P. 2d 78 ; Green v. Okanogan County, 60 Wash. 309 , 111 P. 226 , 114 P. 457 ; and Northwestern Improvement Co. v. McNeil, 100 Wash. 22 , 170 P. 338 .

Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Crompton

150 Or. App. 531 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 1997

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board), claiming that the Board applied the wrong standard for determining compensability. We affirm. … We review the Board’s order to determine whether, as a matter of law, the Board applied an incorrect legal standard. ORS 183.482(8)(a); Armstrong v.

Anderson v. Peden

284 Or. 313 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1978

Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 US 252 (1977); Mount Healthy Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 US 274 (1977), but it is not limited to such sensitive areas. See, e.g., SEC v. … Of course a board may wish to proceed on the analysis stated in Marbet even when no statute compels it to do so. Compare Marbet v.

SAIF Corp. v. Sparks

258 Or. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 21, 2013

ORS 183.482(8)(a)(B); Baker v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 257 Or App 205, 210 , 305 P3d 139 (2013). In resolving that issue, we apply, of course, the methodology prescribed in PGE v. … Haskins v. Palmateer, 186 Or App 159, 166 , 63 P3d 31 , rev den, 335 Or 510 (2003).

Roseburg Forest Products v. McDonald

116 Or. App. 448 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 18, 1992

Employer relies on Georgia-Pacific v. Hughes, 305 Or 286 , 751 P2d 775 (1988), and Hunter v. … In Georgia-Pacific v.

Paine v. Wells

89 Or. 695 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1918

L., § 286, p. 335; Alleghany County Board of Commrs. v. County Commrs., 20 Md. 449, 460 . … Mayor etc. of City of Baltimore, 118 Md. 576 ( 85 Atl. 679 ); McCormick v. City of New Brunswick, 89 N. J. L. 117 ( 97 Atl. 777 ); People ex rel. v. Olsen, 215 Ill. 620 ( 74 N. E. 785 ); Board of Education v.

Burton v. Lithic Mfg. Co.

73 Or. 605 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1914

In Copeland v. Johnson Mfg. Co., 47 Hun (N. … S., 216; Ashley v. Kinnan (Sup.), 2 N. Y. Supp. 574 ; Metropolitan Elevated Ry. Co. v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 14 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 103. 4-7.

Smith v. Douglas County

308 Or. 191 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1989

The Court of Appeals affirmed LUBA’s remand for reconsideration of those issues. 2 Smith v. Douglas County, 93 Or App 503 , 763 P2d 169 (1988). We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. … LUBA did not exceed its authority in remanding those issues to the board.

James v. Employment Division

20 Or. App. 309 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 10, 1975

The Employment Division contends that in modifying the discharge PEKB was substituting its judgment for that of the agency contrary to our holding in Thompson v. … This Board order was pre-Thompson and thus the Board did not have the benefit of the reasoning of this court in Thompson v. Secretary of State, 19 Or App 74 , 526 P2d 621 , Sup Ct review denied (1974).

Rowden v. Hogan Woods, LLC

306 Or. App. 658 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 30, 2020

Co. v. … Assn. v.