Case law

Greenbriar Ag Management v. Lemus

156 Or. App. 499 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 14, 1998

See Ebbtide Enterprises v. Tucker, 303 Or 459, 464 , 738 P2d 194 (1987). The Board explained: “It is apparent from the record that, at the time of the January 24 letter to Dr. … See Ebbtide Enterprises, 303 Or at 464-65 ; *505 SAIF v. Abbott, 103 Or App 49, 52-53 , 769 P2d 378 (1990); Newport Elks Club v. Hays, 92 Or App 604, 607 , 759 P2d 327 , rev den 307 Or 245 (1988).

Langfus, Inc. v. Queirolo

64 Or. App. 493 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 7, 1983

See also State Highway Com’n v. Deal et al, 191 Or 661, 682-83 , 233 P2d 242 (1951). … See Cook v. Michael, 214 Or 513, 527 , 330 P2d 1026 (1958); See also Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. v. McBride, 295 Or 398 , 667 P2d 494 (1983).

Graham v. School District

33 Or. 263 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1898

In Athearn v. … This doctrine was reaffirmed in Cook v. Independent School Dist., 40 Iowa, 444 . A like doctrine was held in Crane v. Bennington School Dist., 61 Mich. 299 ( 28 N.

State of Oregon Ex Rel. v. Dobson

195 Or. 533 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1952

were approved in NLBR v. … Starr v. Laundry Union, 155 Or. 634 , 63 P. (2d) 1104 ; Wallace v. International Ass’n of Mechanics, supra; Schwab v.

Lyke v. Lane County

70 Or. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 26, 1984

Fifth Avenue Corp. v. Washington Co., 282 Or 591, 618 , 581 P2d 50 (1978). … Overton v. Benton County, 61 Or App 667 , 658 P2d 574 (1983).

School District No. 1 v. Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n

30 Or. App. 747 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 1977

See Porter Co. v. NLRB, 397 US 99 , 90 S Ct 821 , 25 L Ed 2d 146 (1970); Labor Board v. American Ins. Co., 343 US 395 , 72 S Ct 824 , 96 L Ed 1027 (1952). … Cummings Constr. v. School Dist. No. 9, 242 Or 106 , 408 P2d 80 (1965); Hale v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 209 Or 99 , 302 P2d 1010 (1956); Methodist Book Concern v. St. TaxCom’n, 186 Or 585 , 208 P2d 319 (1949); Drake v.

Nielsen v. Wilson

13 Or. App. 306 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 14, 1973

Seufert et al. v. Stadelman et al., 178 Or 646 , 167 P2d 936 (1946); Sowell v. Workmen’s Comp. Bd., supra. … Buell v.

Opp v. Employment Department & Youssef, Inc.

242 Or. App. 673 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 2011

See, e.g., Hanshew v. … Western Panel Mfg, 163 Or App 151, 155-56 , 986 P2d 1249 (1999) (“[I]fthe Board found no facts to support its decision, we would have to remand the case to the Board for it to make findings.”); Employment Dept. v.

SAIF Corp. v. Frias

169 Or. App. 345 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 23, 2000

similar version of the rule comported with the legislative intent of ORS 656.210(2)(b)(A) that “ ‘[t]he benefits of a worker who incurs an injury shall be based on the wage of the worker at the time of injury.’ ” Hadley v. … ORS 656.210(2) delegates no authority to the Board to do otherwise. Id. at 161 . We interpret administrative rules according to their plain meaning, considering the text of the rule in context. SAIF v.

Pinnell v. Palmateer

200 Or. App. 303 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 22, 2005

[Petitioner] and Cornell repeatedly threatened Brown with a knife, and one of the men kicked Brown on the side of the head when Brown attempted to loosen the bindings. … Pratt v.

Green v. Baldwin

204 Or. App. 351 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 15, 2006

Former OAR *356 255-90-015 (1985). 4 The applicable rules therefore vested the board with considerable discretion to determine “whether and when to modify” a parolee’s supervision status. Odle v. … The mere possibility that the board might have earlier discharged plaintiff from parole does not prevent plaintiffs claim from becoming moot by reason of his release from prison. See also Barnes v.

Ceaser v. Dept. of Human Services

311 Or. App. 702 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 26, 2021

See ORS 183.482(8)(a); Villanueva v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 175 Or App 345, 355-58, 27 P3d 1100 (2001), adh’d to on recons, 179 Or App 134, 39 P3d 238 (2002). … Waiver is “ ‘the intentional relinquishment of a known right.’ ” Drews v. EBI Companies, 310 Or 134, 150, 795 P2d 531 (1990) (quoting Brown v. Portland School Dist. #1, 291 Or 77, 84, 628 P2d 1183 (1981)).

Montez v. Roloff Farms, Inc.

175 Or. App. 532 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 1, 2001

Under ORS 656.298(7), we review orders of the Board for errors of law, ORS 183.482(7), and for substantial evidence, ORS 183.482(8). Garcia v. … Rather, we require a Board’s order to be a “reasoned opinion based on explicit findings of fact” and to contain an “explanation of why facts supported by evidence lead to its conclusion.” Armstrong v.

Wollam v. Brandt

154 Or. App. 156 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 27, 1998

Irwin v. Ashurst, 158 Or 61, 68 , 74 P2d 1127 (1938). … See, e.g., Franson v. Radich, 84 Or App 715, 719 , 735 P2d 632 (1987) (privilege extends to claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy); Lee v.

Groshong v. Montgomery Ward Co.

73 Or. App. 403 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 1985

Respondent cites Bend Millwork v. Dept. of Revenue, 285 Or 577 , 592 P2d 986 (1977), which discusses judicial notice, to support the Board’s use of the DOT. … The reasoning behind limiting the Board’s — or any agency’s — review to the record was stated in Rolfe v.

Samuelson v. Jewell School District 8

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 26, 2024

Wilson v. Hewlett- Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012); Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 4 All Defendants move to dismiss Samuelson’s FAC except District Attorney Brown, who answered the FAC. … and reversal of the School Board’s decision.

International Paper Co. v. Wright

80 Or. App. 444 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 23, 1986

The Board’s December 27, 1984, order merely adhered to and republished the November 30 order on review; it did not “stay” the order on review or extend the time for seeking review. See Fischer v. … Shoulders v. SAIF, 300 Or 606 , 716 P2d 751 (1986) (when a claim is determined to be compensable, compensation is considered to have been awarded for the purpose of ORS 656.382(2)).

Civil Rights Division of Bureau of Labor v. Williams

280 Or. 595 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1977

The court said, citing Phillips v. … Fairview Hospital v. Stanton, 28 Or App 643 , 560 P2d 667 (1977), overruled Thompson v. Secretary of State, 19 Or App 74 , 526 P2d 621 (1974), and Phillips v.

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.

Deatherage v. Pernsteiner

239 Or. App. 161 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 24, 2010

In support of her constitutional argument, petitioner cited Vlandis v. … See Portello v.