Case law

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.

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.

Tucker v. Lampert

174 Or. App. 373 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 23, 2001

An administrative body, such as the Board, possesses only those powers that the legislature grants and cannot exercise authority that it does not possess. Gaynor v. … See ORS 144.050 (authorizing Board to set terms of parole for offenders whose offenses were committed prior to November 1, 1989); Williams 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.

Fenimore v. Blachly-Lane Cnty. C.E.A.

297 Or. App. 47 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 10, 2019

See PGE v. … Safeway, Inc. v. OPEU , 152 Or. App. 349 , 357, 954 P.2d 196 (1998) ; see also Tanner v. OHSU , 157 Or.

Herman v. East Side Logging Co.

135 Or. 279 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1931

In Miller et al. v. … J., Rand and Brown, JJ., concur.

In Re Beers

339 Or. 215 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2005

See State v. Gallant, 307 Or 152, 157 , 764 P2d 920 (1988) (shoplifting is crime of dishonesty for purposes of impeachment under OEC 609). … Without minimizing the board’s concerns about candor, we are satisfied that applicant disclosed every relevant fact to the board and did not try to hamper the board’s review in any way.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Collier

295 Or. 320 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1983

The four member Disciplinary Review Board concurred in the Trial Board’s findings and recommendations. … At the hearing before the Trial Board on April 16, 1982, Dering took a position consistent with paragraph V of the complaint.

SAIF Corp. v. Allen

193 Or. App. 742 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 9, 2004

Further, in Columbia Forest Products v. … We therefore conclude that substantial evidence supports the board’s finding that SAIF’s denial did encompass a combined condition. The board must apply the relevant law. DiBrito v.

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.

McBee v. School District No. 48

163 Or. 121 · Oregon Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1939

See also Landers v. Van Aukin, supra. … In the following recent cases it was held applicable to school boards: Beers v. Lasher, 209 Iowa 1158 , 229 N. W. 821 ; Fleming v. Board of Trustees, 112 Cal. App. 225 , 296 P. 925 .

Nelson v. SAIF Corp.

302 Or. 463 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1987

Nelson v. SAIF, 78 Or App 75, 77 , 714 P2d 631 (1986). … For this line of reasoning, the Board relied on the decision in Morrison-Knudsen Constr. Co. v.

Seeley v. Sisters of Providence

179 Or. App. 723 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 27, 2002

As we explained in *729 McTaggart v. … Conversely, we explained in Bronco Cleaners v.

Johnson v. State Accident Insurance Fund

267 Or. 299 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1973

Both the board and the circuit court held for petitioner on the merits and awarded attorney’s fees. … are not recoverable in such proceedings because the Injured Inmates Act does not provide for them within the Act itself nor by incorporation of the attorney’s fees provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. ① Johnson v.

Scheller v. Holly House

125 Or. App. 454 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 22, 1993

SAIF contends that under that provision no medical information obtained after the reconsideration process is admissible before the Board or courts on the issue of impairment. In Pacheco-Gonzalez v. … Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Smith, 122 Or App 160, 163 , 857 P2d 187 (1993). Under these circumstances and under ORS 656.283(7), the medical reports were admissible. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Schaaf v. Eugene School District No. 4J

19 Or. App. 838 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 23, 1974

Interpreting a predecessor statute, in Funston v. … Makinson v. School District No. 4, 209 Or 232 , 304 P2d 1076 (1956), involved a teacher reduced from full-time to half-time employment. The school board contended there was a nonpersonal reason for the change.

State v. Martin

40 Or. App. 217 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 14, 1979

Brown, 262 Or 442 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972). … In State v. Ayers, 16 Or App 655, 663 , 520 P2d 449 rev den (1974), we acknowledged that State v. Jones remained good law despite the intermediate decisions in State v. Brown and State v.