Case law

Baker v. Cameron

240 Or. 354 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 1965

Com. v. Bates, 217 Or 121 , 341 P2d 119 (1959); see, also, Unemp. Compensation Com. v. Brown, 225 Or 306 , 358 P2d 502 (1960). … Board of Review of Industrial Com’n, 123 Utah 423 , 260 P2d 744 (1953), as persuasive decisions from other jurisdictions. However, the facts in these case are also materially different.

United Academics of OSU v. OSU

315 Or. App. 348 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 27, 2021

ORS 183.482(8)(c); Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 195-96, 335 P3d 828 (2014) (explain- ing the substantial-reason requirement that is implicit in substantial-evidence standard). … See, e.g., Mendacino v.

Francis v. Schuman

74 Or. 454 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1915

any way binding upon the board or *456 other state officers. … Crowell, 33 Or. 11, 13 ( 52 Pac. 693 ); Moores v. Moores, 36 Or. 261, 264 ( 59 Pac. 327 ); State ex rel. v. Grand Jury, 37 Or. 542, 543 ( 62 Pac. 208 ); Oregon Electric Ry. Co. v.

Lederer v. Viking Freight, Inc.

193 Or. App. 226 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 28, 2004

See Menasha Corp. v. Crawford, 332 Or 404, 413 , 29 P3d 1129 (2001). … , we do not review the board’s construction of the rule under the deferential standard of Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v.

Cruz-Salazar v. SAIF

317 Or. App. 342 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 2, 2022

Held: The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the board for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Caren v. … Robinette v.

Teledyne Wah Chang v. Vorderstrasse

104 Or. App. 498 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 5, 1990

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 205-06 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). The Board agreed with the referee, so it was not required to reiterate the referee’s findings, if they were adequate. Johnston v. … See Collins v. Hygenic Corporation of Oregon, supra. The Board’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Bartz

142 Or. App. 433 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 31, 1996

Collateral attacks on final orders of the Board are not permitted. King v. Building Supply Discount, 133 Or App 179, 182-83 , 889 P2d 1310 (1995); Vanslyke v. … In Volk v.

Bledsoe v. City of Lincoln City

301 Or. App. 11 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 4, 2019

SAIF v. Coburn, 159 Or App 413, 419, 977 P2d 412, rev den, 329 Or 527 (1999) (citing Fazzolari v. … .”)); Strazi v.

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.

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Eight

126 Or. App. 244 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 2, 1994

We will reverse the Board’s decision to grant claimant’s request for a continuance if the Board acted outside the range of discretion delegated to it by law or if it acted inconsistently with its own rules, because those … ORS 656.298(6); ORS 183.482(8)(b); Bronson v. Moonen, 270 Or 469, 476 , 528 P2d 82 (1974); Harsh Investment Corp. 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.

Matter of Compensation of Fraijo

59 Or. App. 260 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 1982

The Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) lowered the referee’s award to 30 percent. … To the extent it is hypothetical, claimant’s argument is therefore resolved by OSEA v. Workers’ Compensation Dept., supra.

Troupe v. Labor Ready, Inc.

191 Or. App. 258 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 17, 2003

The board affirmed. … Ligatich v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 185 Or App 555, 561 , 60 P3d 1143 (2003). In this case, the board’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. Affirmed.

Dial Temporary Help Service, Inc. v. DLF International Seeds, Inc.

255 Or. App. 609 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 13, 2013

Brown v. American Property Management, 167 Or App 53, 61 , 1 P3d 1051 (2000). He contends that we are bound by that principle and that, accordingly, we erred in affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. … Thus, in Madson v.

Stevenson v. Blue Cross

108 Or. App. 247 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 24, 1991

Dethlefs v. Hyster Co., 295 Or 298, 310 , 667 P2d 487 (1983). Claimant also assigns as error that the Board concluded that SAIF had not accepted her claim for tendonitis. She argues that, under Bowman, v. … Georgia-Pacific v. Piwowar, 305 Or 494, 500 , 753 P2d 948 (1988); see also Johnson v. Spectra Physics, 303 Or 49, *252 56 , 733 P2d 1367 (1987).

State v. George

183 Or. App. 583 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 25, 2002

State v. Amini, 331 Or 384, 394 , 15 P3d 541 (2000). … State v.

Peterson v. State Compensation Department

2 Or. App. 412 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 16, 1970

At this point, claimant’s attorney requested the board to allow an attorney fee, but the board refused. … In Printz v. Compensation Department, 253 Or 148 , 453 P2d 665 (1969), the State Compensation Department rejected a widow’s claim for benefits. Pursuant to her request a hearing was held before a hearing officer.

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 ).

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.

Eggert v. SAIF

301 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 11, 2019

177 Eggert v. … The board also rejected claimant’s contention that a “contingent” acceptance is not permitted by the statutes. The board discussed our opinion in SAIF v.