Case law

Ball v. Halton Co.

167 Or. App. 468 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 24, 2000

See Hewlett Packard Co. v. Leonard, 151 Or App 307 , 948 P2d 1256 (1997); Schuening v. J. R. Simplot & Company, 84 Or App 622, 625 , 735 P2d 1 , rev den 303 Or 590 (1987). … We conclude that the Board properly declined to consider claimant’s argument, because it was not raised at the hearing. Fister v. Smith Hills Health Care, 149 Or App 214 , 942 P2d 833 (1997). Affirmed.

Rothenfluch v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 322 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 3, 1990

Liquid Air Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 159 (1979). … United States v. Winona & St. Peter R. Co., 165 US 463 , 17 S Ct 368 , 41 L Ed 789 (1897); United States v. California & Oregon Land Co., 148 US 31 , 13 S Ct 458 , 37 L Ed 354 (1893).

Meyer v. Ford Industries, Inc.

50 Or. App. 249 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 1981

The Supreme Court in Brackhahn v. … The rule for relation back is explained in Brackhahn, 269 Or at 673 , and is reiterated in Campbell v.

Gugler v. Baker County Education Service District

10 Or. Tax 315 · Oregon Tax Court · Nov 26, 1986

Where judgment must be exercised by the administrative board or body, the questioned decision must fall into the area of unreasonable before the court will overturn it. Rogue River Pack. v. … Stasher v. Harger-Haldeman, 58 Cal *327 2d 23, 372 P2d 649, 652 (1962), quoted in Dept. of Rev. v. Umatilla County, 10 OTR 309 (1986).

United Parcel Service v. Likos

143 Or. App. 486 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 18, 1996

However, relying on Fossum, Bracke, and Progress Quarries v. … Compare Beneficiaries of Strametz; Bennett v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., *491 128 Or App 71, 78 , 875 P2d 1176 (1994). 1 Accordingly, the Board erred in assigning responsibility to UPS.

HAMMON STATE LINE v. Stinson

123 Or. App. 418 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 29, 1993

Employer requested Board review. The Board modified the referee’s order. Relying on Drews v. … That issue, however, was neither raised nor argued before the Board, and we will not entertain it for the first time on judicial review. EBI Ins. Co. v.

Maddox v. Clackamas County School District No. 25

51 Or. App. 639 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 13, 1981

There is no review of the reason for discharge, or the good faith of the board. 4 In Henthorn v. … See Brooks v. Dierker, 275 Or 619 , 552 P2d 533 (1976); Jordan v. City Council of Lake Oswego, 49 Or App 31 , 618 P2d 1298 (1980), rev den (1981). Count I was properly dismissed.

Mills v. Boeing Co.

212 Or. App. 678 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 16, 2007

As we explained in Columbia Forest Products v. … The board therefore did not err under Altamirano by concluding that the denial had legal effect. Claimant also argues that the board impermissibly departed from George C. McCoy, 50 Van Natta 49 (1998). See Hays v.

City of Eugene v. McDermed

250 Or. App. 572 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 27, 2012

We review orders of the board for errors of law and substantial evidence. ORS 656.298(7); ORS 183.482; Sandberg v. JC Penney Co. Inc., 243 Or App 342, 347 , 260 P3d 495 (2011). In Legacy Health Systems v. … See, e.g., Panpat v.

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.

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.

SAIF Corp. v. Nehl

148 Or. App. 101 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 21, 1997

(the Board), which adopted and affirmed the ALJ’s order. … The Board is correct. The statute provides that the on-the-job injury must be the major contributing cause of the need for treatment, not the major contributing cause of the combined condition. Accord Robinson v.

SAIF Corp. v. Fister

177 Or. App. 13 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 3, 2001

We agreed with her argument and remanded to the Board for reconsideration. Fister v. South Hills Health Care, 149 Or App 214 , 942 P2d 833 (1997), rev den 326 Or 389 (1998). … Teachers v. Mult. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 171 Or App 616, 636-37 , 16 P3d 1189 (2000).

State v. Costanzo

94 Or. App. 516 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 21, 1988

The Supreme Court recently set the standard for submitting the affirmative defense of necessity to the jury in State v. Brown, 306 Or 599, 602-04 , 761 P2d 1300 (1988). … State v. Brown, supra, 306 Or at 606 . Because the court took the defenses from the jury, we evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the party seeking the instruction. State v. Brown, supra, 306 Or at 606 .

State ex rel. Department of Land Conservation & Development v. Clatsop County

244 Or. App. 27 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 29, 2011

For the reasons set forth in DLCD v. … Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 237 Or App 149, 152 , 238 P3d 1016 (2010), rev allowed, 349 Or 602 (2011).

Fischer v. Benton County

244 Or. App. 166 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 13, 2011

Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 237 Or App 149, 152 , 238 P3d 1016 (2010), rev allowed, 349 Or 602 (2011). … (Emphasis in original.)); Damman v.

Orowheat-Bimbo Bakeries USA-BBU, Inc. v. Vargas

287 Or. App. 331 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 23, 2017

The board reversed the ALJ. … The board affirmed the ALJ’s order holding that the new/omitted medical conditions were compensable, and this court affirmed the board’s order without opinion. Orowheat-Bimbo Bakeries v.

State Tax Commission v. Consumers' Heating Co.

207 Or. 93 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1956

In cases like Weyerhaeuser Land Co. v. … The company relies on the following language employed by Justice Brown in a concurring opinion in the Smith case: “Believing that this court is not authorized to act as a board of assessors in the matter of the valuation

State v. Pies

104 Or. App. 646 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 12, 1990

In Guthrie’s upstairs bedroom, Kroening found either the 9mm Browning or the .38 caliber revolver and a knife. … See State v. Martin, 64 Or App 469, 472 , 668 P2d 479 (1983); State v. Thiesies, 63 Or App 200, 202 , 662 P2d 797 (1983).

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.