Case law

Crampton v. Harmon

20 Or. App. 676 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 31, 1975

Mohr v. State Board of Education, 236 Or 398, 401 , 388 P2d 463 (1964). ‘Informational’ hearings are conducted like hearings before legislative committees that are considering proposed legislation. … Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sinderman, 408 US 593 , 92 S Ct 2694 , 33 L Ed 2d 570 (1972).

State ex rel. Reed v. Smith

15 Or. 98 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1887

(Allen v. Hill, 16 Cal. 119 .) … The same view is expressed in Seeligson & Co. v. Brown, 61 Tex. 114 , and in Angelí & Ames on Corporations, section 357.

State v. Mitchell

273 Or. App. 207 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 19, 2015

Those three factors, which were adopted from Brown v. … See State v.

Russell v. State Accident Insurance Fund

33 Or. App. 153 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 13, 1978

We conclude that this case should be remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Board for a redetermination of the extent of claimant’s permanent partial disability in the light of Russell v. … In several cases this court has echoed the rule that some deference to the Board on the extent of partial disability is appropriate. Hart v. SAIF, 31 Or App 181 , 570 P2d 92 (1977); Frantz v.

SAIf Corp. v. Alton

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

See SAIF v. … See SAIF v.

Newcomb v. Thompson

176 Or. App. 167 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 15, 2001

Weidner v. Armenakis, 154 Or App 12, 19 , 959 P2d 623 , vac’d and rent’d 327 Or 317 (1998), withdrawn by order July 13, 1998, reasoning readopted and reaffirmed in Merrill v. … However, we also have held that a prerequisite for such a finding by the Board is a “psychiatric or psychological diagnosis.” ORS 144.125(3) (1991). Christenson v. Thompson, 176 Or App 54 , 31 P3d 449 (2001).

Shepherd v. City of Salem

320 F. Supp. 2d 1049 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 8, 2004

See Draper v. … See McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or. 532 , 901 P.2d 841 (1995). V.

SAIF Corp. v. Orr

101 Or. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 23, 1990

Grant v. State Industrial Acc. Com., 102 Or at 45; see 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law [§ 13.22].’ ” 296 Or at 251 . The Board considered the relevant factors. … It has been held that the Board must make express findings on that issue. SAIF v. Stephen, 308 Or 41,47-48 , 774 P2d 1103 (1989).

Hiles v. STATE COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT

2 Or. App. 506 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 4, 1970

See also Barr v. State Compensation Dept., 1 Or App 432 , 463 P2d 871 (1970). … Beaudry v.

Campbell v. Aldrich

159 Or. 208 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1938

The New Jersey court (Phelps v. Board of Education, 115 N. J. … Note the distinction which the court makes in the Brand case between that and Phelps v. Board of Education, supra. Groves v. Board of Education, 367 Ill. 91 (10 N.

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.

Farmers Insurance Group v. SAIF Corp.

301 Or. 612 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1986

SAIF filed a request for review with the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) on June 3, 1983. Farmers moved to dismiss the request for review insofar as untimely. The Board denied the motion to dismiss. … Chisholm v. SAIF, 26 Or App 627, 631 , 553 P2d 1083 (1976) (Schwab, C.J., dissenting). (Emphasis supplied.) *618 Farmers asserts that the rüle of Chisholm governs the present case.

Godfrey v. Douglas County

28 Or. 446 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1896

In Tompkins v. … In Becker v.

Sparling v. Providence Health System Oregon

258 Or. App. 275 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 21, 2013

Cf Altamirano v. … Co. v.

Compensation of Button v. State Accident Insurance Fund

45 Or. App. 295 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 17, 1980

Francoeur v. SAIF, 20 Or App 604, 611 , 532 P2d 1148 (1975), rev den, 1974. We decline to alter the Board’s decision. … See Moe v. Ceiling Systems, Inc., 44 Or App 429 , 606 P2d 644 (February 11, 1980).

City of Eugene v. McCann

248 Or. App. 527 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 7, 2012

Young v. State of Oregon, 246 Or App 115, 119 , 265 P3d 32 (2011). … See, e.g., Wright 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.

United States v. Moore

15 F.2d 593 · District Court, D. Oregon · Nov 7, 1926

Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 585 , 12 S. Ct. 195 , 35 L. Ed. 1110 . … Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 593 , 16 S. Ct. 644 , 40 L. Ed. 819 . Congress, no doubt having in view the ruling in Brown v.

State v. Morgan

316 Or. 553 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1993

State v. Morgan, 116 Or App 338, 345 , 842 P2d 406 (1992). We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, in part on different grounds. … See State v. Davis, 315 Or 484, 486-88 , 847 P2d 834 (1993), for an explanation of the system. A sentenced defendant serves the time, with no early release on parole other than for good time served.

Pennoyer v. Willis

26 Or. 1 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1894

Railway Company, 24 Wis. 157 ; Roach v. Karr, 18 Kan. 529 . … so doing would be binding upon the board.