Case law

Fifth Avenue Corp. v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ETC.

282 Or. 591 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1978

City of Eugene, 22 Or App 231, 538 P2d 368 (1975); Auckland v. Board of County Commissioners of Multnomah County, 21 Or App 596 , 536 P2d 444 (1975); Tierney v. … City Council of West Linn, 21 Or App 310 , 535 P2d 583 (1975); Dickinson v. Board of County Commissioners, 21 Or App 98 , 533 P2d 1395 (1975); Marggi v. Ruecker, 20 Or App 669 , 533 P2d 1302 (1975); Culver v.

Oregon Boiler Works v. Lott

115 Or. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 26, 1992

The Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. … Boise Cascade v. Starbuck, 296 Or 238, 243 , 675 P2d 1044 (1984); Bracke v. Baza’r, 293 Or 239, 250 , 646 P2d 1330 (1982), mod 294 Or 483 , 658 P2d 1158 (1983); Progress Quarries 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.

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.

SAIF Corp. v. Fitzsimmons

159 Or. App. 464 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 7, 1999

Abu-Adas v. Employment Dept., 325 Or 480, 485 , 940 P2d 1219 (1997). We begin with the text and context of the rule. … See Hadley v.

Barr v. World Keepfresh Co.

77 Or. 95 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1915

Co. v. Washburn, 29 *98 Or. 150, 164 ( 44 Pac. 390 ); Allen v. Elwert, 29 Ór. 428, 444 ( 44 Pac. 823 , 48 Pac. 54 ); 2 Jones on Liens, § 1419; Hughes v. Lansing, 34 Or. 118, 124 ( 55 Pac. 95 , 75 Am. St. … Lybrandt v.

Roy v. McCormack Pacific Co.

172 Or. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 28, 2001

SAIF petitions for reconsideration of our opinion in this workers’ compensation case, Roy v. McCormack Pacific Co., 171 Or App 526 , 17 P3d 550 (2000). Claimant also cross-petitions for reconsideration. … Relying on our holding in Chaffee v.

Hempel v. SAIF Corp.

100 Or. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 3, 1990

It was received by the Board on November 7. … Anderson v. Publishers Paper Co., 93 Or App 516, 518 , 763 P2d 398 (1988). Good cause in this context means “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,” as those terms are used in ORCP 71B(1). Barr v.

Herron v. Employment Division

24 Or. App. 531 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 1, 1976

Claimant appeals from a decision of the Employment Appeals Board (Board) denying him a hearing on the merits of his unemployment claim. … Def. v. Air Poll. Auth., 16 Or App 638 , 519 P2d 1271 , Sup Ct review denied (1974). Jurisdiction for review is in the circuit court where a proper record can be made. See, Amazon Coop. Tenants v. Bd. High.

Hensler v. City of Portland

212 Or. 28 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1957

Kosmecki *34 v. Portland Stevedoring Co., 190 Or 85 , 223 P2d 1035 ; Johnson v. Timber Structures, Inc., 203 Or 670 , 281 P2d 723 . In all these cases except Brown v. … Brown v. Underwood Lumber Co., 172 Or at 267 .

Martinez v. Employment Division

54 Or. App. 95 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 5, 1981

See Palen v. State Bd. of Higher Education, 18 Or App 442 , 525 P2d 1047 , rev den (1974). Our analysis requires that this case be remanded to the Board for reconsideration. … See also, McPherson v. Employment Division, 285 Or 541 , 591 P2d 1381 (1979); Megdal v.

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Eight

126 Or. App. 244 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 2, 1994

We will reverse the Board’s decision to grant claimant’s request for a continuance if the Board acted outside the range of discretion delegated to it by law or if it acted inconsistently with its own rules, because those … ORS 656.298(6); ORS 183.482(8)(b); Bronson v. Moonen, 270 Or 469, 476 , 528 P2d 82 (1974); Harsh Investment Corp. v.

State v. McHenry

161 Or. App. 606 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 7, 1999

evidence within the meaning of Brown and, therefore, the state did not need to lay a Brown foundation before eliciting that diagnosis from the doctors. … See Davis v.

Gordon v. City of Beaverton

292 Or. 228 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1981

Scott Construction v. Farrell, 285 Or 563, 568 , 592 P2d 551 (1979). But LUBA is an agency, not a court in the judicial system. … Compare Fish & Wildlife Department v. LCDC, 288 Or 203 , *231 603 P2d 1371 (1979) (statute precluded agency’s requiring exhaustion of pre-review remedies).

Murdoch v. SAIF Corp.

223 Or. App. 144 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2008

Claimant seeks judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (board) denying his occupational disease claim. … We conclude that the board’s decision is not supported by substantial reason; the facts do not lead logically to the board’s legal conclusion. See Drew v.

Eggert v. SAIF

301 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 11, 2019

177 Eggert v. … The board also rejected claimant’s contention that a “contingent” acceptance is not permitted by the statutes. The board discussed our opinion in SAIF v.

Be Boest v. Gambell

35 Or. 368 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1899

So, also, in People ex rel. v. Board of Police, 75 N. Y. 38 , the relator was appointed police surgeon by the board of police, under a resolution which fixed his salary at $1,500 per annum. … See, also, to the same effect, People ex rel. v. French, 91 N. Y. 265 ; Board v. City of Decatur, 64 Tex. 7 ( 53 Am. Rep. 735 ); State v. Mayor of Nashville, 15 Lea, 697 ( 54 Am. Rep. 427 ).

Guerrero v. Stayton Canning Co.

92 Or. App. 209 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 20, 1988

The Board agreed with the referee but held that the denial was premature under Roller v. … An employer may not issue a partial denial of a previously accepted inseparable condition while the claim is still open. *213 Roller v. Weyerhaeuser Co., supra; Safstrom v. Riedel International, Inc., supra.

Multnomah County v. Obie

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

In Bowen v. … Corp. v.

Martin v. City of Albany

320 Or. 175 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1994

In Gettman v. SAIF, 289 Or 609, 614 , 616 P2d 473 (1980), the Board had reduced a worker’s permanent disability award, because it found that he had a “potential” for retraining. … See also 1000 Friends v.