Case law

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).

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.

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.

Clapa v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · May 21, 2012

Jeffrey Brown (Brown), Real Property Appraiser, Multnomah County Oregon, Division of Assessment, Recording & Taxation, appeared on behalf of Defendant. … The Multnomah County Board of Property Tax Appeals Order, dated March 4, 2011, determined a real market value of $165,340 for Account R175194.

City of Hialeah Employees' Ret. Sys. v. FEI Co.

289 F. Supp. 3d 1162 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jan 25, 2018

Bankshares, Inc. v. … Similarly, in Azar v.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Casteel

74 Or. App. 566 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 17, 1985

Claimant requested review by this court, and we modified the Board’s order and granted claimant an award of 50 percent unscheduled permanent partial disability. Casteel v. SAIF, 55 Or App 474 , 638 P2d 1165 (1982). … In Bekins Moving and Storage Co. 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 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.

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

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.

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.

Dean Warren Plumbing & Liberty Northwest Insurance v. Brenner

150 Or. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 1997

See State v. … See Deluxe Cabinet Works 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).

Bay Area Hospital & Health Future Enterprises v. Landers

150 Or. App. 154 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 17, 1997

The Board concluded that: (1) employer did not accept the chondromalacia patella condition when it accepted her original injury claim; but, (2) under Deluxe Cabinet Works v. … Thus, the Board’s holding was premised on our analysis in Messmer II.

Knaggs v. Allegheny Technologies

223 Or. App. 91 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 15, 2008

The board affirmed. … See Dept. of Justice v.

Hutchinson v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

67 Or. App. 577 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 11, 1984

. *582 Johnson v. Industrial Indem., 66 Or App 640 , 675 P2d 498 (1984). … Stoneman v. SAIF, 45 Or App 701 , 609 P2d 408 (1980). 2 We do not express any opinion as to whether employer’s interpretation of the stipulation was correct.

Hickey v. Hickey

269 Or. App. 258 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 2015

Stull v. … For example, in Browning v.