Case law

Sahnow v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

3 Or. App. 164 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 11, 1970

This statute was construed in Coday v. Willamette Tug and Barge, 250 Or 39 , 440 P2d 224 (1968), and Beagle v. Wilhelm Warehouse Co., 2 Or App 533 , 463 P2d 875 , 470 P2d 386 (1970), and Hannan v. … Rogers, but in the later reports obtained pursuant to the Board’s order, said that the fact such studies had not been made would not change their opinions. In Coday v.

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.

In re North Powder River

75 Or. 83 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1914

And in Hough v. … Whited v. Cavin, 55 Or. 98 ( 105 Pac. 396 ), Williams v.

Domogalla v. Department of Revenue

283 Or. 377 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1978

Mittleman v. Commission, 2 OTR 105 (1965). A taxpayer who disagrees with the value determined by the assessor must petition the Board of Equalization for review. ORS 309.100. … Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR 454 (1976); Co-Operative Security Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR 419 (1976); State Finance Co. etal v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 651 (1974); T & R Service v. Commission, 3 OTR 271 (1968); Mittleman v.

Wright v. Oregon Metallurgical Corp.

222 F. Supp. 2d 1224 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 6, 2002

OPINION AND ORDER BROWN, District Judge. Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 as amended (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 , et seq. … Horn v. Berdon, Inc., 938 F.2d 125 , 127 (9th Cir.1991). See also Schuck v. Gilmore Steel, 784 F.2d 947, 951 (9th Cir.1986). In Schuck 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.

State v. RATHBONE III

110 Or. App. 414 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 26, 1991

State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434 , 806 P2d 130 , rev dismissed 312 Or 76 , 815 P2d 201 (1991). Defendant specifically notes that he is not seeking to have his convictions “set aside.” … State v. Cook, 108 Or App 576, 580 , 816 P2d 697 (1991).

O'NEAL v. Tewell

119 Or. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1993

In Spivey v. … Shoulders v. SAIF, 300 Or 606, 611 , 716 P2d 751 (1986). Here, the claim for compensation had been accepted. The only issue concerned the amount of benefits.

Port of Portland v. Municipal Employees, Local 483

27 Or. App. 479 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 29, 1976

Local 483 argues that the Board’s order is not appealable, citing Klamath Co. v. Laborers Inter. Union, 21 Or App 281 , 534 P2d 1169 (1975). … Klamath Co. v. Laborers Inter. Union, supra.

Leslie v. U.S. Bancorp

129 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 1994

See Safeway Stores v. Smith, supra. … We have since held that the Board has the authority to review the director’s application of existing rating standards and to remand in appropriate circumstances. Gallino v.

Bowman v. SAIF Corp.

278 Or. App. 417 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 2016

See Dotson v. … Or Laws 1991, ch 312, § 1. 4 The amendment was designed to overrule Jones v.

Johnson v. Employment Division

56 Or. App. 454 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 22, 1982

Claimant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Employment Appeals Board (Board) disqualifying him for unemployment compensation benefits on the ground of misconduct in connection with his work. … See, e.g., Bremer v. Employment Division, 52 Or App 293, 296-298 , 628 P2d. 426 (1981). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Dye v. Employment Department

203 Or. App. 39 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 7, 2005

ORS 183.482(8)(c); Armstrong v. … Schoch v. Leupold & Stevens, 325 Or 112, 118 , 934 P2d 410 (1997) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Drew v.

Lesher v. Strid

165 Or. App. 34 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 12, 2000

In Wilkinson v. … In Combs v.

Beaverton School District No. 48 v. Employment Division

29 Or. App. 487 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 23, 1977

Aschenbrenner v. Employment Div., 29 Or App 345 , 563 P2d 757 (1977); Tolonen v. Employment Div., 25 Or App 575 , 549 P2d 1294 (1976); Weidert v. Employment Division, 22 Or App 474 , 539 P2d 1116 (1975). … The decision of the Board is reversed as "unlawful in substance.” ORS 657.282; 183.482(8)(a). Cf. Chamblee v. Employment Div., 23 Or App 53 , 541 P2d 165 (1975).

State v. Cooper

37 Or. App. 443 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 11, 1978

State v. Young, 24 Or App 5 , 544 P2d 179 , rev den (1976). In State v. Baxley, 27 Or App 73 , 555 P2d 782 (1976), however, we held that it does not apply to probation revocation hearings. … We conclude that State v. Young, supra, is not in point and that a probation revocation hearing is not a special *448 statutory proceeding within the meaning of ORS 19.010(4).” 27 Or App at 78 .

Khrul v. Foremans Cleaners

194 Or. App. 125 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 2004

The board reversed the ALJ. The board concluded that the record, including Friedman’s report, simply did not establish that claimant has permanent impairment. … See SAIF v.

Minniti v. Employment Division

21 Or. App. 356 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 12, 1975

controversy” — Minniti v. … In affirming a decision of the Board denying benefits to a student attending Lane Community College, this court noted in Callaghan v.

Deyo-Bundy v. SAIF

313 Or. App. 393 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 14, 2021

PER CURIAM Affirmed. 394 Deyo-Bundy v. … “In determining whether the board’s order is sup- ported by substantial reason, we consider whether that order articulates the reasoning that leads from the facts found to the conclusions drawn.” Walker v.

Washer v. Clatsop Care & Rehabilitation District

304 Or. 3 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1987

See Forrester v. City of Hillsboro, 156 Or 89 , 66 P2d 496 (1937) (charter required corporation to contract only pursuant to written ordinance or resolution of the governing board); White v. … In addition to cases cited supra, see Barbour & Son v.