Case law

Campos v. Hood River Care Center

104 Or. App. 261 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 7, 1990

To be adequate for our review, an order of the Board must contain findings of fact, reasoning and conclusions of law, Armstrong v. … Johnston v. James River Corp., 91 Or App 721, 722 , 756 P2d 696 (1988). Here, neither the Board nor the referee made findings of fact or conclusions of law on whether claimant had good cause for failing to appear.

Jarrett v. Wills

235 Or. 51 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1963

It is now settled that in this state only the legislature can waive immunity, James & Yost v. Board of Higher Edu., supra, 1959, 216 Or 598 , 340 P2d 577 ; Vendrell v. … From Barr v.

Intel Corp. v. Renfro

155 Or. App. 447 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 5, 1998

The Board then considered, and rejected, employer’s argument that, under Smith v. … S-W Floor Cover Shop v. Natl. Council on Comp. Ins., 318 Or 614, 622 , 872 P2d 1 (1994). See, e.g., Fred Meyer, Inc. v.

State ex rel. Department of Land Conservation & Development v. Clatsop County

244 Or. App. 33 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 29, 2011

In Biggerstaff v. … Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 237 Or App 149, 152 , 238 P3d 1016 (2010), rev allowed, 349 Or 602 (2011).

Odoms v. Oregon State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 24, 2021

OREGON STATE BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. … See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

State v. Evans

82 Or. 46 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1916

The district boundary board did not make an express finding that the petition was in fact signed by one third of the legal voters, nor is it shown or even claimed that the board had any evidence of the number of legal voters … of State v.

Savin Corp. v. McBride

134 Or. App. 321 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 1995

As explained in Norpac Foods, Inc. v. … See, e.g., Underwood v.

Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State

246 Or. App. 477 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 9, 2011

We review the board’s conclusion that the CBA is ambiguous for errors of law, Arlington Ed. Assn. v. Arlington Sch. Dist. … We first consider whether the board correctly construed the CBA. A CBA is a contract that is subject to the general rules of contract interpretation. Marion Cty. Law Enforcement Assn. v.

J a K Pizza, Inc. - Domino's v. Gibson

211 Or. App. 203 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 28, 2007

White v. S.I.A.C., 236 Or 444, 447 , 389 P2d 310 (1964); Barker v. Wagner Mining Equip., 6 Or App 275, 278 , 487 P2d 1162 (1971). … We therefore remand to the board for clarification. See Labor Force v. Frierson, 169 Or App 573, 578 , 9 P3d 128 (2000) (remanding case because order was not clear).

Brown

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 5, 2026

A at 2- 3, 7; Decl. of Byron Brown Supp. Pl. Resp. (“Brown Decl.”), ECF 49-2, ¶¶ 2.2 Plaintiff makes a profit on the majority of the days he works. Wilson Decl. Ex. A at 9-10. … Lasley v. Combined Transp., Inc., 234 Or. App. 11, 16, 227 P.3d 1200 (2010) (citing Buchler v. Or. Corr.

Sandberg v. JC PENNEY CO. INC.

243 Or. App. 342 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 1, 2011

ORS 656.005(7)(a). 1 The relevant facts in this case are undisputed; thus, we review the board’s determination for errors of law. ORS 656.298(7); ORS 183.482(8); American Medical Response v. … (quoting Smith v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 69 Cal 2d 814, 825, 447 P2d 365 (1968)); see also Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v.

Sullivan v. Argonaut Insurance

73 Or. App. 694 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 1985

The Board properly reversed that decision, citing Roy McFerran, Jr., 34 Van Natta 621 (1982), aff’d without opinion, McFerran v. SAIF, 60 Or App 786 , 655 P2d 230 (1982). … See Alvarez v. GAB Business Services, Inc., 72 Or App 524 , 696 P2d 1131 (1985); Maarefi v. SAIF, 69 Or App 527, 531 , 686 P2d 1055 (1984).

Glerum v. Roberts

308 Or. 22 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 26, 1989

Reed v. Roberts, 304 Or 649, 652 , 748 P2d 542 (1988). In 1987, the legislature amended ORS 250.035 to its present form. See Reed v. Roberts, supra, 304 Or at 653 . … Reed v. Roberts, supra, 304 Or at 652-53 .

Doughty v. Birkholtz

156 Or. App. 89 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 9, 1998

Filing a claim with the board triggers an administrative process regulated by ORS chapter 701. See Stadelman v. Builders Board, 62 Or App 1 , 659 P2d 1017 (1983) (reviewing board’s decision as an administrative order). … See also To v.

Norgren v. PSRB

344 Or. App. 617 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 5, 2025

Norgren v. … Rolfe v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, 53 Or App 941, 947, 633 P2d 846, rev den, 292 Or 334 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted).

State v. Clark

291 Or. 231 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1981

Holman, supra , held that a board of commissioners had violated article I, section 20, in denying petitioners a license to maintain a sailors' boarding house because the board had not used objective standards for selecting … Sterling v. Cupp, 290 Or. 611 , 625 P.2d 123 (1981), note 1 and cases there cited, Megdal v. Board of Dental Examiners, 288 Or. 293, 296 , 605 P.2d 273 (1980).

SAIF Corp. v. Drury

202 Or. App. 14 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 12, 2005

SAIF v. Lewis, 335 Or 92 , [ 58 P3d 814 ] (2002).” SAIF then appealed the ALJ’s order to the Workers’ Compensation Board. … ORAP 5.45(1); Clinical Research Institute v. Kemper Ins. Co., 191 Or App 595, 608-09 , 84 P3d 147 (2004).

Sabre Farms, Inc. v. Jordan

78 Or. App. 323 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 9, 1986

In Securities-Intermountain v. … Albino v. Albino, supra, 279 Or at 553 .

Bennett v. Oregon State Bar

256 Or. 37 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1970

More recently in Warren v. … We interpret Lathrop v.

Perez v. Persson

258 Or. App. 684 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 2, 2013

Finally, petitioner expresses uncertainty as to how the board might ultimately apply the holdings in Janowski/ *688 Fleming v. Board of Parole, 349 Or 432 , 245 P3d 1270 (2010), and Severy Wilson v. … The Department of Corrections’ position appears to have been based on its reading of Norris v. Board of Parole, 331 Or 194 , 13 P3d 104 (2000), overruled by Severy /Wilson v.