Case law

State v. Gatto

304 Or. App. 210 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 13, 2020

Brown¸ 273 Or App 347, 352 n 4, 359 P3d 413 (2015), we noted the development of two different formulations for abandonment, viz., actual or apparent abandonment: “In [State v.] … State v. Brown, 348 Or 293, 297-98, 232 P3d 962 (2010) (quoting State v. Campbell, 306 Or 157, 164, 759 P2d 1040 (1988) (emphasis omitted)).

Independent Paper Stock v. Wincer

100 Or. App. 625 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 7, 1990

By promulgating OAR 438-12-018, the Board exceeded its authority. … In Armstrong v.

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.

E. DUARTE v. SAIF Corporation

179 Or. App. 737 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 27, 2002

If the Board found that he failed to meet his burden of production, we would remand its order for reconsideration in light of our opinion in Seeley v. Sisters of Providence, 179 Or App 723 , 41 P3d 1093 (2002). … Because we cannot determine which course the Board took, we reverse and remand to allow it to clarify and, if appropriate, reconsider its order. See Labor Force v. Frierson, 169 Or App 573, 578 , 9 P3d 128 (2000).

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.

Mico, Inc. v. Wilbur-Ellis Co.

39 Or. App. 867 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 1979

Wakefield, Fries & Co. v. Parkhurst, 84 Or 483, 488 , 165 P 578 (1917). We conclude that it did not carry this burden. Mr. … We conclude that Brown’s letter of April 11, quoted above, merely refers to such an arrangement. Further, the contrary testimony of Mr.

Babcock v. Employment Division

25 Or. App. 661 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 1976

Geraths v. Employment Division, 24 Or App 201 , 544 P2d 1066 (1976); Romanosky v. Employment Div., 21 Or App 785, 536 P2d 1277 (1975); Georgia-Pacific v. Employment Div., 21 Or App 135, 533 P2d 829 (1975). … App. 638, 641 , 95 N.E.2d 214 ; Boynton Cab Co. v. Giese (1941), 237 Wisc. 237, 296 N.W. 630 . * * *” 147 Ind App at 44. Geraths was decided by this court after the decision in this case was handed down by the board.

Multnomah County v. Obie

207 Or. App. 482 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 2006

In Bowen v. … Corp. v.

State v. Jones

275 Or. App. 771 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 2015

The court concluded that “Dempster's per se rule is inconsistent with the subsequent development of the Fourth Amendment attenuation exception set out in Brown v. … State v.

Swint v. City of Springfield

305 Or. App. 679 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 5, 2020

See Walker v. … Instead, the board discussed our decision in French-Davis v.

International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Harvey Aluminum

226 Or. 94 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1961

The following cases support the view of the National Labor Relations Board: NLRB v. Carpenters Local 176, 276 F2d 582 (1st Cir 1960) and Teamsters Local 357 v. NLRB, 275 F2d 646 (DC Cir 1960). … For an informative discussion of the effect of the Garmon case in this field, see Grunwald-Marx, Inc. v. L. A. Joint Board, 52 Cal2d 568, 343 P2d 23 .

Libbett v. Roseburg Forest Products

130 Or. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 7, 1994

In Koitzsch v. Liberty Northwest Ins. … The Board could rely on that evidence in its evaluation of the medical evidence. The Board did not err.

Greenwade v. Tepper

285 Or. App. 646 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 2017

See Brown v. Roach, 249 Or App 579, 585 , 277 P3d 628 (2012) (observing that we have repeatedly held that “offensive, hostile, and aggressive statements are not enough to satisfy the standard [set out in Rangel]”). … Id.; see also Campola v.

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.

James v. Clackamas County

353 Or. 431 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 11, 2013

Plaintiff is charged with the knowledge of the content of the Board order. An order of the Board of Commissioners can only be modif[ied] by action of the Board. … The assertion that only the board could modify its prior orders is not the same thing as a concession that the board had modified its contract with plaintiff. See Bennett v. Farmers Ins.

Matter of Compensation of Davies

103 Or. App. 280 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 5, 1990

The Board awarded $600, without any explanation for its decision. In Weyerhaeuser Co. v. … The Board gave no explanation. Therefore, we remand for reconsideration of attorney fees.

Johnson v. SAIF Corp.

194 Or. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 2004

SAIF v. Walker, 330 Or 102, 118-19 [, 996 P2d 979 ] (2000); SAIF v. … See Uris v.

1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

303 Or. 430 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 27, 1987

LCDC (Union County), 77 Or App 728 , 714 P2d 283 (1986)(per curiam); 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Columbia Co.), 77 Or App 728 , 714 P2d 283 (1986)(per curiam); 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Wash. … While ORS 527.726, then HB 3008, was before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Senators Brown and Kulongoski drafted a minority report adding the following language: “(4) Upon approval by the Land

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.

Cole v. Chemeketa Community College

58 Or. App. 77 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 8, 1982

Henthorn v. Grand Prairie School Dist., 287 Or 683 , 601 P2d 1243 (1979), involved a probationary teacher who sought a writ of review challenging the defendant school board’s refusal to renew his employment contract. … In Maddox v. Clac. Co. Sch. Dist. No. 25, 293 Or 27 , 643 P2d 1253 (1982), a terminated probationary teacher filed an action for breach of contract.