Case law

Roseburg Forest Products v. Lund

245 Or. App. 65 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 17, 2011

Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 405-06 , 848 P2d 1194 (1993). … In that light, we understand employer to contend that the board mischaracterized the scope of its acceptance. We disagree. In Columbia Forest Products v.

Wayne-Dalton Corp. v. Mulford

190 Or. App. 370 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 5, 2003

The board based its ruling on two of our previous decisions, Templeton v. Pope and Talbot, Inc., 7 Or App 119 , 490 P2d 205 (1971), and Liberty Northwest Insurance Co. v. Meeker, 106 Or App 411 , 807 P2d 342 (1991). … More significantly, those cases were decided before PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993).

Derry v. Douglas County

132 Or. App. 386 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 18, 1995

LUBA concluded that the governing body’s interpretation of its ordinance to provide that a tie vote affirms the planning commission was entitled to deference under Gage v. … City of Portland, 319 Or 308 , 877 P2d 1187 (1994), and Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508 , 836 P2d 710 (1992). LUBA accorded that deference and sustained that aspect of the county’s decision.

Multnomah County School District v. Tigner

113 Or. App. 405 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 10, 1992

The Board denied that request, because it believed that it lacked jurisdiction to order reimbursement between insurers. In Western Employers Ins. v. … Corp. v. SAIF, 99 Or App *410 729, 733, 784 P2d 123 (1989). Accordingly, the Board did not err by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to order reimbursement.

State v. Martinez-Garcia

283 Or. App. 473 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 25, 2017

Brown v. United States, 356 US 148, 155-56 , 78 S Ct 622 , 2 L Ed 2d 589 (1958); Lea, 146 Or App at 482-83 . … See Redwine v.

State v. Kelsey

66 Or. 70 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1913

Corp. (5 ed.), § 572; Clinton v. Portland, 26 Or. 410 ( 38 Pac. 407 ). 3. … Corp’. (5 ed.), § 571; Municipality No. 1 v. Cutting, 4 La. Ann. 335 . 5.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Tonkon

292 Or. 660 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1982

Megdal v. Board of Dental Examiners, 288 Or 293, 307 , 605 P2d 273 (1980). … Wright, The Code of Professional Responsibility: Its History and Objectives, 24 Ark L Rev 1, 1-2 (1970). 4 In re Millen v.

The Ninfa

156 F. 512 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 7, 1907

Tuckerman v. Stephens, etc., Transp. Co., 32 N. J. Law, 320. … Co. v. Farr & Bailey Mfg. Co., a.nd The Alvena, supra.

State v. Haugen

Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2017

State v. Haugen, 274 Or App 127, 360 P3d 560 (2015). … State v.

In Re Ma-J.

228 Or. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 27, 2009

As for the patdown, the state contends that, under the Supreme Court's decision in State v. … In State v.

Willamette Freighting Co. v. Stannus

4 Or. 261 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1872

The doctrine that whenever a corporation is so organized as to be capacitated to prosecute its business, it has, through its Board of Directors, the power to levy assessments (S. & S. P. R. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. … Co. v. Rice, 7 Barb. 164 ; S. & S. P. R. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 107 .) It appears that two assessments, aggregating thirty-five per cent., were levied by the stockholders by virtue of Article 10 of the by-laws.

Bronco Cleaners v. Velazquez

141 Or. App. 295 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 29, 1996

We conclude that the Board did not err. Affirmed. 1 Petitioners on appeal are Bronco Cleaners and its insurer, Liberty Northwest Insurance Corp. We refer to petitioners as employer. 2 Employer cites Allie v. … SAIF, 79 Or App 284, 288 , 719 P2d 47 (1986), and Edwards v.

Day v. Northwest Division 1055

238 Or. 624 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1964

Our study of these and other cases and authority have caused us to conclude that Borden and Perko *626 limit plaintiff’s relief here to the National Labor Relations Board. The earlier case of Machinists v. … Bd. v. Technicolor Motion Pic. Corp., (9th Cir USCA, 1957), 248 F2d 348, and International Union of Electrical, R. & M. Wkrs. v.

Callaway v. Employment Department

225 Or. App. 650 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 11, 2009

Jones v. Employment Dept., 199 Or App 571, 575-76 , 112 P3d 453 (2005); Freeman v. Employment Dept., 195 Or App 417, 424 , 98 P3d 402 (2004). … Further, the department’s decision is the one rendered by the authorized representative, not the one made by either the ALJ or the board. McPherson v.

Gugler v. Baker County Education Service District

305 Or. 548 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1988

The Tax Court in Dept. of Rev. v. … Gibbons v. Dept. of Rev., 9 OTR 176 (1982) (failure of board of directors even to read applicable Local Budget Law statutes rendered it impossible to apply substantial compliance doctrine).

McAlpine v. Multnomah County

131 Or. App. 136 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 26, 1994

Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, supra; Buchler v. … Torres v. Pacific Power and Light, 84 Or App 412, 415 , 734 P2d 364 , rev dismissed 304 Or 1 (1987) (negligence per se); Dunlap v.

State v. Hager

315 Or. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 13, 2021

PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. 202 State v. … As for the merits of the due process question, we see little difference between this matter and our recent deci- sion in State v. Brown, 313 Or App 283, 284-86, 496 P3d 701 (2021).

Bridges v. Multnomah County

92 Or. 214 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1919

Custer County, 7 Mont. 464 ( 17 Pac. 551 ); Jones v. Bladen County, 73 N. C. 182 ; Collins v. King County, 1 Wash. Ter. 416; May v. County of Buchanan, 29 Fed. 49 . See, also, Fenton v. … In Naylor v.

Timber Access Industries Co. v. U. S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc.

263 Or. 509 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1972

Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Pub. … In Dallas County v.

Maxwell v. PORTLAND TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY

253 Or. 573 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1969

In Brown v. … Brown v. Bonesteele was followed in Western Feed Co. v. Heidloff, 230 Or 324, 370 P2d 612 (1962). That was an action to recover the price of pig feed; the defendant counterclaimed for damages for breach of warranty.