Case law

Dawkins v. Pacific Motor Trucking

308 Or. 254 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1989

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, as did the Court of Appeals. Dawkins v. … See Cutright v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 299 Or 290, 293 , 702 P2d 403 (1985); State v. Commissioner, 40 Ohio St 3d 44, 531 NE2d 678 (1988).

Oregon & Washington Savings Bank v. Catlin

15 Or. 342 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1887

As this was not done, the board was not authorized to do otherwise than reject it. Theré is also another objection which is fatal to this proceeding, the county and not the board is the proper party. … In Wood v. *345 Riddle, 14 Or. 254 , it was said by StbahAN, J.: “In all analogous cases in this State, from Thompson v. Multnomah County, 2 Or. 34 , to Pruden v.

Klamath Cty. v. Laborers Int. U. of Na, Loc. No. 915

21 Or. App. 281 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 5, 1975

See, Connecticut Light and Power Company v. Leedom, 174 F Supp 171 (DC Cir 1959); United Insurance Company of America v. N.L.R.B., 272 F2d 446 (7th Cir 1959). … * * Winters et al v. Grimes et al, 124 Or 214, 216-17 , 264 P 359 (1928). This definition has previously been adopted by this court to determine the appealability of orders of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

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.

Arken v. City of Portland

351 Or. 113 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2011

Co. v. … al. v.

In the Matter of Jordan

206 Or. App. 511 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 14, 2006

Jordan v. SAIF, 197 Or App 599 , 106 P3d 663 (2005). Claimant filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court. While that petition was pending, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dougan v. … Jordan v. SAIF, 339 Or 156 , 119 P3d 224 (2005). On reconsideration, we again affirm the board’s order.

Denton v. EBI Companies

67 Or. App. 339 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 14, 1984

SAIF v. Parker, 61 Or App 47 , 656 P2d 335 (1982). We agree with the Board that EBI has not perfected a lien for the time loss payments made before the stipulation. … Any conflict as to what may be a just and proper distribution shall be resolved by the board.” See Schlecht v. SAIF, 60 Or App 449, 455, n 5 , 653 P2d 1284 (1982).

Dennis Uniform Manufacturing v. Teresi

119 Or. App. 447 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 21, 1993

See Shoulders v. SAIF, 300 Or 606, 609-10 , 716 P2d 751 (1986). Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified; affirmed. … Multnomah County School Dist. v. Tigner, 113 Or App 405 , 833 P2d 1294 (1992), is distinguishable.

Proctor v. SAIF Corp.

123 Or. App. 326 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 22, 1993

The Board, instead, analyzed claimant’s activity under the seven factors identified in Mellis v. … We agree that the Board’s analysis is flawed. The Supreme Court in SAIF v.

Corona v. Pacific Resource Recycling

125 Or. App. 47 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 8, 1993

See Martinez v. Dallas Nursing Home, 114 Or App 453 , 836 P2d 147 [, rev den 315 Or 271 ] (1992). … Oliver v. Norstar, Inc., 116 Or App 333, 336 , 840 P2d 1382 (1992).

Strawn v. BELLEQUE

217 Or. App. 578 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2008

See Adams v. … Moreover, and in any event, on this date, we have determined on judicial review of the relevant board order that the order was not unlawful for any of the reasons asserted by plaintiff in that proceeding. Strawn v.

State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. v. Phipps

85 Or. App. 436 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 20, 1987

Hensel Phelps Const, v. … The Board relied on Petshow v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 76 Or App 563 , 710 P2d 781 (1985), rev den 300 Or 722 (1986), which involved a proceeding to determine which insurer was responsible for a compensable injury.

Braden v. SAIF Corp.

187 Or. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 8, 2003

We have repeatedly interpreted ORS 656.295(6) as granting the board de novo review and as authorizing the board to address issues sua sponte. Christman v. SAIF, 181 Or App 191, 195 , 45 P3d 946 (2002); Destael v. … In Croman Corp. v.

Hammond v. ALBINA ENGINE & MACHINE WORKS, INC.

13 Or. App. 156 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 23, 1973

In that case we dismissed an appeal from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Board that had remanded claimant’s case for a further hearing. In Hiles v. … * * Winters et al v. Grimes et al, 124 Or 214, 216-17 , 264 P 359 (1928).”

Huckaby v. Newell

16 Or. App. 581 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 11, 1974

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 US at 479-480 . Morrissey v. … conducts further proceedings consistent with Morrissey v.

Harris v. Farmers' Co-op Creamery

53 Or. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 24, 1981

Schwehn v. SAIF, 17 Or App 50 , 520 P2d 467 (1974). Both the referee and the Board agreed that claimant had established legal causation. … We said in Hammons v.

Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Bird

99 Or. App. 560 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 1989

Co. v. Rush, 98 Or App 730 , 780 P2d 748 (1989); Kepford v. Weyerhaeuser, 77 Or App 363 , 713 P2d 625 , rev den 300 Or 722 (1986). In Million v. … Co. v. Rush, supra, 98 Or App at 735 ; Kepford v. Weyerhaeuser, supra, 77 Or App at 365 .

Matter of Adoption of Leistikow

37 Or. App. 539 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 18, 1978

See Swarthout v. Reeves, 26 Or App 763, 767 , 554 P2d 617 (1976); Brown v. Taylor, 22 Or App 219 , 538 P2d 1268 , rev den (1975); Berry v. Letchworth, 19 Or App 261 , 527 P2d 145 (1974); Mahoney v. … In such cases, the degree of constraint imposed is significant; i.e. neglect consistent with terms of the decree, Swarthout v. Reeves, supra at 763; active secretion of children coupled with threats of death, Brown v.

Werth v. Employment Department

237 Or. App. 520 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 29, 2010

We take the following, undisputed facts from the board’s order as supplemented by the record. See Lane v. Employment Dept., 229 Or App 556, 558 , 213 P3d 9 (2009). … best guarantee of her safety. 6 See, e.g., State v.

Robertson v. Low

44 Or. 587 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1904

This court has virtually decided in Robertson v. … In further support of the principle, see State v. Emmert, 19 Kan. 546 ; Ewing v. Baldwin, 24 Kan. 82 ; Baker v. Newland, 25 Kan. 25 ; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 30 Kan. 91 ( 1 Pac. 388 ); Conklin v. Hawthorn, 29 Wis. 476 .