Case law

Trevitts v. Hoffman-Marmolejo

138 Or. App. 455 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 3, 1996

The Board approved the CDA on May 21,1991. … Timberline Equipment v. St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins., 281 Or 639, 643 , 576 P2d 1244 (1978); Slocum v. Lang, 132 Or App 571, 576 , 889 P2d 379 (1995).

Mathews v. City of La Grande

136 Or. 426 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 1931

the injury: Village of Shelby v. … Rep. 799 ); Shannon v. Tacoma, 41 Wash. 220 ( 83 P. 186 ); Fisher v. Anacortes, 109 Wash. 191 ( 186 P. 271 ).

McManus v. Skoko

255 Or. 374 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1970

The circuit court held that the applicable statute required the board to approve the petition to incorporate as presented or with altered boundaries as determined by the board and to call an election thereon. … See State v. Bay City, 65 Or 124 , 131 P 1038 (1913).

Aetna Casualty Co. v. Jackson

108 Or. App. 253 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 24, 1991

In Randall v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 107 Or App 599 , 813 P2d 1120 (1991), we held that ORS 656.262(10) does not provide an independent basis for the award of *257 attorney fees. … In Morgan v.

State v. Sims

287 Or. 349 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 11, 1979

Green, 286 Or 99 , 593 P2d 777 (1979); Tharalson v. State Dept. of Rev., 281 Or 9 , 573 P2d 298 (1978); Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Court, 280 Or 95 , 570 P2d 52 (1977); Deras v. … Myers, 272 Or 47 , 535 P2d 541 (1975); State v. Brown, 262 Or 442 , 497 P2d 1191 (1972); Dickman v. School Dist. 62C, 232 Or 238 , 366 P2d 533 (1962). In State v.

SAIF Corp. v. Abbott

107 Or. App. 53 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 1991

It contends that our conclusion that it had accepted responsibility for claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome is inconsistent with Georgia-Pacific v. Piwowar, 305 Or 494 , 753 P2d 948 (1988). … Therefore, the Board never reviewed the proper record, and the referee’s conclusions regarding employer’s acceptance could not have been adequately reviewed by the Board.

Wiedeman v. Campbell

108 Or. 55 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1923

As to this point the case is governed by the ruling-in the case of Briedwell v. Henderson, 99 Or. 506 *58 ( 195 Pac. 575 ). We have only to apply the law as announced by Mr. Justice Brown in the Briedwell case. … J., and Burnett and Brown, JJ., concur.

Blamires v. Clean Pak Systems, Inc.

171 Or. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 6, 2000

He contends that the Board erred in affirming the employer’s denials of coverage because its denials were premature under Croman Corp. v. Serrano, 163 Or App 136 , 986 P2d 1253 (1999). … July 8,1998: The second closure is set aside by the hearings division; claimant appeals to the Board. September 24,1998: The Board reverses the ALJ and reinstates the March 17 denial.

Dean v. SAIF Corp.

72 Or. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 6, 1985

Price v. SAIF, supra, 296 Or at 316 . … See Winters et al v. Grimes et al, 124 Or 214 , 264 P 359 (1928); Jones v. SAIF, supra; Mendenhall v. SAIF, 16 Or App 136 , 517 P2d 706 , rev den (1974); Hammond v.

Farmers Insurance Group v. Huff

149 Or. App. 298 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 23, 1997

The Board explained, pursuant to Dickson v. … Next, the Board concluded that under Motel 6 v.

Department of Human Services v. D. H.

269 Or. App. 863 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 18, 2015

Dept. of Human Services v. N. … Dept. of Human Services v. G. J. R., 254 Or App 436, 443 , 295 P3d 672 (2013).

State v. Unger

276 Or. App. 445 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 10, 2016

State v. … See ORAP 5.45(1) (authorizing review of errors apparent on the record); State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (describing requirements for plain error review); see also Ailes v.

Vandehey v. Pumilite Glass & Building Co.

35 Or. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 5, 1978

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the referee’s opinion. Claimant appeals. We affirm. … Claimant relies on Cavins v. SAIF, supra.

Cordrey v. Steamship

102 Or. 636 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1922

.” *650 In Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172, 175 ( 44 L. Ed. 119 , 20 Sup. Ct. … Johns and Brown, JJ., concur.

McGee Plumbing, Inc. v. Building Codes Division

221 Or. App. 123 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 2, 2008

Here, for example, the functions of the board and DCBS were performed in 1980 by the Builders Board and the Department of Commerce. … Petitioner is correct that the agencies must rationally explain their decision, Papas v. OLCC, 213 Or App 369, 375-76 , 161 P3d 948 (2007), and we conclude that they have met that standard here.

Roseburg Forest Products v. Humbert

212 Or. App. 285 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 25, 2007

Co-Oper. v. Dept. of Rev., 273 Or 539, 550-51 , 542 P2d 900 (1975). … Weyerhaeuser Company v. Miller, 306 Or 1 , 760 P2d 1317 (1988), provides relevant instruction.

Konell v. Konell

48 Or. App. 551 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 6, 1980

The Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) reversed. 1 Employer appeals. We review de novo. ORS 656.298(6); Coday v. Willamette Tug & Barge, 250 Or 39 , 440 P2d 224 (1968); Brenner v. … Miller v. Granite Construction Co., 28 Or App 473 , 559 P2d 944 (1977); Fredrickson v.

CCP Crestview 1505 LLC v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Mar 28, 2024

The subject property’s 2021-22 tax roll real market value, sustained by the board of property tax appeals (board), was $10,561,070. (Compl at 3.) Its maximum assessed value and assessed value were each $7,435,440. … Rivers Edge, 359 Or at 827; see also Powell Street I, LLC v.

Multifoods Specialty Distribution v. McAtee

164 Or. App. 654 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 29, 1999

In SAIF v. … In Sanford v.

Kelsey v. Drushella-Klohk NCE

128 Or. App. 53 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 18, 1994

The failure to timely file and serve all parties with a request for Board review requires dismissal, Mosley v. … See Argonaut Insurance v. King, supra; Zurich Ins. Co. v. Diversified Risk Management, supra. There is another reason why we conclude that DIF was entitled to be served with a copy of the request for Board review.