Case law

Goodwin v. Employment Division

35 Or. App. 299 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 18, 1978

Petitioner seeks reversal of a decision of the Employment Appeals Board (Board) denying her unemployment benefits. … Shed Cafe v. Employment Div., 30 Or App 639 , 567 P2d 617 (1977); Geraths v. Employment Division, 24 Or App 201, 204 , 544 P2d 1066 (1976). Ordinarily a single instance of misconduct would not disqualify a claimant.

Moore v. West Lawn Memorial Park, Inc.

266 Or. 244 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1973

The letter in Ramstead v. Morgan, supra ( 219 Or 383 ), is an example. Another example is Shummway v. Warrick, 108 Neb 652, 189 NW 301 (1922). Plaintiff filed an application for a bank charter with the banking board. … The defendant wrote a libelous letter to the board charging defendant with malfeasance in a public office. The court held the letter absolutely privileged. Plaintiff has cited Meyer v.

Saif Corp. v. Scardi

218 Or. App. 403 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 12, 2008

(citing Savin Corp. v. … See, e.g., First Interstate Bank v.

Allied Waste Industries, Inc. v. Crawford

203 Or. App. 512 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 28, 2005

Dietz v. Ramuda, 130 Or App 397, 401 , 882 P2d 618 (1994), rev dismissed, 321 Or 416 (1995). As we explained in SAIF v. … Kenimer, 183 Or App at 138 ; see also Worldmark The Club v.

Whitlock v. Klamath County School District

142 Or. App. 137 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 3, 1996

That emphasis may well have skewed the Board’s passing consideration of the preparation demands of the social studies position. Accord Magana v. … See Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 294 Or 357, 370 , 657 P2d 188 (1982). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the Board to address that question.

State v. Stewart

123 Or. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 1993

Defendant’s argument relies primarily on City of Pendleton v. Standerfer, 297 Or 725 , 688 P2d 68 (1984). See also State v. Grenvik, 291 Or 99 , 628 P2d 1195 (1981); Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. … State v. Farmer, 317 Or 220, 224 , 856 P2d 623 (1993); see also State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990).

Barrow v. School Dist. No. 8

83 Or. 272 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1917

In Stackpole v. … It was approved there so far as it relates to a claim upon a contract: See, also: Philomath v. Ingle, 41 Or. 289 ( 68 Pac. 803 ); Richardson v. City of Salem, 51 Or. 125 ( 94 Pac. 34 ).

SAIF Corp. v. Marin

139 Or. App. 518 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 13, 1996

In SAIF v. Marin, 128 Or App 161 , 875 P2d 529 (1994), we reversed an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) that held that claimant’s injury was compensable. … We remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration in the light of Norpac Foods, Inc. v. Gilmore, 318 Or 363 , 867 P2d 1373 (1994), which was decided after the Board had initially decided the case.

Reed v. Dunbar

41 Or. 509 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1902

Co. v. Riggen, 31 Or. 336 ( 48 Pac. 476 ); Ex parte Ferdon, 35 Or. 171 ( 57 Pac. 376 ). … to that board or commission the right to appoint subordinate officers or agents to carry out the legislative will: State ex rel. v.

State v. Vandehey

83 Or. App. 325 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 28, 1987

State v. Brown, supra, 301 Or at 276 . … State v. Brown, supra, 301 Or at 277 . The deputy testified that defendant’s vehicle was inoperable. It was immobile when he first encountered it.

State v. Coleman

167 Or. App. 86 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 3, 2000

State v. Brown, 301 Or 268, 277 , 721 P2d 1357 (1986). That per se rule has come to be known as the “automobile exception.” … In the years following Brown and Kock , this court further refined the automobile exception analysis in State v. Cromwell, 109 Or App 654 , 820 P2d 888 (1991), State v.

State v. Tripp

36 Or. App. 141 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 6, 1978

See In re Williams, 306 Fed Supp 617 (DDC 1969); Thomas v. State, 21 MD 573, 320 A2d 538 (1974); Bryant v. … v.

Saif Corp. v. Dobbs

173 Or. App. 599 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 2001

Claimant has filed a petition for reconsideration of our decision in SAIF v. Dobbs, 172 Or App 446 , 19 P3d 932 (2001). … The Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. We therefore adhere to our affirmance of the Board’s order.

Bogard v. Barhan

52 Or. 121 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1908

Ed. 447 ) ; Halsell v. Renfrow, 14 Okl. 674 ( 78 Pac. 118 ) ; Eggleston v. Wagner, 46 Mich. 610 ( 10 N. W. 37 ) ; Browne, Stat. Frauds, § 385; Wood, Frauds, § 353. 3. That is certain which can be made certain. … Willamette Co. v. Gordon, 6 Or. 175, 179 ; House v. Jackson, 24 Or. 89 ( 32 Pac. 1027 ) ; Hayden v. Brown, 33 Or. 221 ( 53 Pac. 490 ) ; Smiley v. Fries, 104 Ill. 416 . 4.

Counts v. International Paper Co.

146 Or. App. 768 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 5, 1997

The exception to that proposition is illustrated by Brooks v. D & R Timber, 55 Or App 688, 692 , 639 P2d 700 (1982). In *771 Brooks , the claimant suffered a compensable left knee injury while at work. Id. at 691 . … Claimant does not question any other factual findings made by the Board.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Chambers

292 Or. 670 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1982

We agree with the Trial Board, although maybe for a different reason. The Trial Board did not expand upon the reason for its finding. … State of Oregon v.

Miller v. School District No. 1

106 Or. 108 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1922

Sacramento v. Bird, 15 Cal. 294 ; State v. Conkling, 19 Cal. 501 .” Roche v. Mayor, etc., 40 N. J. L. 257, 262. The decisions of our own court are in accord with the above principles: State v. … For the purposes of construction the title of a statute may be considered: Torreyson v. State Board of Examiners, 7 Nev. 19, 22.

SAIF Corp. v. VanBibber

234 Or. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 2010

SAIF further argued that, under Nelson v. … Nelson v. EBI Companies, 64 Or App 16, 23 , 666 P2d 1360 (1983), aff'd, 296 Or 246, 252 , 674 P2d 596 (1984); Lynne Fisher, 52 Van Natta 1392 (2001).

State v. Washington

28 Or. App. 765 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 21, 1977

See also State v. Boyd, 271 Or 558 , 533 P2d 795 (1975). The acts charged in the separate indictments here are as closely linked in "time, place and circumstance,” State v. … See State v. Brown, 262 Or 442 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972); State of Oregon v. McCormack, 8 Or 236 (1880). See also Ashe v. Swenson, 397 US 436 , 90 S Ct 1189 , 25 L Ed 2d 469 (1970). In State v.

Preston v. Wonder Bread

96 Or. App. 613 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 1989

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). The Board found that claimant began working as a bakery worker for Wonder Bread in 1979. … Weller v. Union Carbide Corp., 288 Or 27 , 602 P2d 259 (1980). The Board erred as a matter of law, because it applied its findings to the wrong standard by labeling a “predisposition” as the “condition” at issue.