Case law

Windmill Inns of America, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

14 Or. Tax 271 · Oregon Tax Court · Mar 6, 1998

That is consistent with People for Ethical Treatment v. Inst. Animal Care, 312 Or 95 , 817 P2d 1299 (1991) where the court held that the appealing party must be able to show some injury. … Because the assessor sets the assessed value, if the board does not change that value, then the assessor is not aggrieved *274 and cannot appeal. Bear Creek Plaza v. Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 272 (1992).

Shively v. Pennoyer

27 Or. 33 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1895

Hobbs, 27 Cal. 483 ; Quinn v. Kenyon, 38 Cal. 499 ; Schiefferly v. Tapie, 68 Cal. 184 ( 8 Pac. 878 ); Stewart v. Altstock, 22 Or. 182 ( 29 Pac. 553 ). 3. … These acts of the board being discretionary, its directions and decisions will not be reviewed by the courts: Corpe v. Brooks, 8 Or. 222 .

Roy v. McCormack Pacific Co.

171 Or. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 27, 2000

Moreover, claimant did not seek reconsideration of the Board’s order when it failed to address the issue. An argument that is not raised to the Board is deemed waived. See Oregon Lox Co. v. … In Albany General Hospital v.

Scott v. Liberty Northwest Insurance

268 Or. App. 325 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 31, 2014

As we held in Johansen v. … The case thus narrows down to the question addressed in the board’s order: Was there medical authorization for the payment of temporary disability? We explained in Lederer v.

Portland State University Chapter of the American Ass'n of University Professors v. Portland State University

240 Or. App. 108 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 2010

Somoza v. University of Denver, 513 F3d 1206, 1212 (10th Cir 2008).” Steele v. Mayoral, 231 Or App 603, 616 , 220 P3d 761 (2009) (emphasis added). … We reverse and remand so that the board may apply the correct standard as enunciated in Burlington. ORS 183.482(8)(a)(B). Cf. Nakashima v.

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. v. City of Portland

214 Or. App. 534 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 2007

Board of Forestry, 192 Or App 126, 128 , 83 P3d 966 (2004), rev’d on other grounds, 339 Or 136 , 117 P3d 990 (2005). An error is plain if, among other things, its erroneousness is not reasonably in dispute. State v. … Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 US 166, 179 , 101 S Ct 453 , 77 L Ed 2d 368 (1980) (quoting Flemming v. Nestor, 363 US 603, 612 , 80 S Ct 1367 , 4 L Ed 2d 1435 (1960)).

Pietrzykowski v. Albertsons, Inc.

212 Or. App. 421 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 2, 2007

In explaining the first rationale for its decision, the board analogized this case to Crowder v. … Finally, citing Trujillo v.

SAIF Corp. v. Kelly

130 Or. App. 185 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 7, 1994

The Board refers to claimant’s “right wrist de Quervain’s tenosynovitis.” Those labels appear to be interchangeable. 2 In Bracke v. … See also Timm v.

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.

Varner v. Portland Trust Bank

210 Or. 658 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1957

Iltz v. Krieger, 104 Or 59, 65 , 202 P 409 , 206 P 550 ; Brown v. Miles, 193 Or 466, 479 , 238 P2d 761 . … Benedict v. Lee, supra ( 198 Or 387 ); Brown v. Miles, supra ( 193 Or 479 ).

Clark v. FAZIO

191 Or. 522 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1951

Lyons v. Browning et al., 170 Or. 350, 354 , 133 P. 2d 599 ; Arthur v. Parish, 150 Or. 582 , 47 P. 2d 682 ; Trimmins v. Hale, 122 Or. 24 , 256 P. 770 . In Lyons v. Browning et al., supra, Mr. … Lyons v. Browning et al., supra; Lampa v. Hakola, 152 Or. 626, 630 , 55 P. 2d 13 ; Arthur v. Parish, supra; Karberg v. Leahy, 144 Or. 687, 692 , 26 P. 2d 56 ; Shain v.

Wade v. Amalgamated Sugar Co.

71 Or. 75 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1914

This would be compensation for the injury suffered and nothing- more: Wade v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 65 Or. 488 ( 132 Pac. 710 ); Brown Land Co. v. Lehman, 134 Iowa, 712 ( 112 N. W. 185 , 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 88). *77 2. … Davis, 1 Browne (Pa.), 334 . *78 4.

Christie v. Paulus

292 Or. 344 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1982

“Question: Shall Forestry Board’s sustained yield management policy for state timber be changed and set into law and Board be restructured? … Megdal 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.

Buell v. Jefferson County Court

175 Or. 402 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1944

Arant v. Lane, supra; Duncan Townsite Company v. Lane, supra; Duke v. Turner, 204 U. S. 623 , 51 L. E. 652, 27 S. Ct. 316 , 9 Ann. Cas. 842; Board of Education v. … Board of Education 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.

In Re Compensation of Pruitt

224 Or. App. 280 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 3, 2008

Because the board found that claimant’s condition is properly considered as an occupational disease, and not as a consequential condition, See DiBrito v. … The board then determined that the medical evidence established that claimant’s later employment with WM actually contributed to his condition and, therefore, the board assigned responsibility to WM. See SAIF v.

Mendenhall v. State Accident Insurance Fund

16 Or. App. 136 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 7, 1974

The circuit court proceeded to hear the matter and affirmed the Board. The Fund then appealed to this court. In Hammond v. … See also Barr v. Compensation Department, 1 Or App 432 , 463 *139 P2d 871 (1970); Hiles v. Compensation Department, 2 Or App 506 , 470 P2d 165 (1970); and Buster v.

Guill v. M. Squared Transportation, Inc.

277 Or. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 6, 2016

In so doing, it rejected claimant’s argument that Livesley v. … Id.; Blank, 252 Or App at 557-58 ; McTaggart v.

Loud v. Gold Ray Realty Co.

72 Or. 155 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1914

The right to a lien of this kind is a creature of the statute, and the right to perfect such a lien is limited to the persons who do the work or furnish the material or supplies: Brown v. Harper, 4 Or. 92 ; Alderson v. … In Alderson v.