Case law

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.

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.

Ragan v. Fred Meyer, Inc.

73 Or. App. 363 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 1985

In the alternative, she contends that the Board’s order of May 27,1983, was issued before the Supreme Court’s decision in Price and that she did not seek review of the Board’s order because of our decision in Jones v. … An appeal of the portion of the Board’s order remanding the claim to the referee would have been premature. Jones v. SAIF, supra.

Smurfit Newsprint v. DeRosset

118 Or. App. 368 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 3, 1993

EBI, as Smurfit’s insurer at the time of the 1977 injury, authorized knee replacement surgery and requested that the Board reopen the 1977 claim on its own motion. The Board did so. … In SAIF 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.

Roberts v. Legacy Meridian Park Hospital, Inc.

97 F. Supp. 3d 1245 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 10, 2015

The Hearn v. … See, e.g., Rubel 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.

Kelly v. Multnomah County

18 Or. 356 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1890

Counsel for Multnomah county rely upon Connelly v. Dakota County, 35 Minn. 365 . … And the same remark may be made in reference to the case of Grubb v. Louisa County, 40 Iowa 314 , cited by respondent’s counsel.

Sauer v. Pioneer Adjustment Co.

44 Or. App. 715 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 25, 1980

On review, the Board said, relying on language from Larsen v. State Ind. Acc. … Unlike the situation in Otto v.

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.

Welch v. Clatsop County

24 Or. 452 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1893

In National Bank v. Kimball, 103 U. S. 732 , Mr. … R. v. Frary, 22 Ill. 34 . In Mining Co. v. Auditor-General, 37 Mich. 391 , the court says: “ Equity will not interfere to restrain the collection of the public revenue for mere irregularities.

Wilkinson v. Jay's Contracting, Inc.

76 Or. App. 142 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 1985

The Builders Board is required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in a contested case. ORS 183.470(2). Its conclusions of law must be rationally based on its findings of fact. See Bremer v. … Schumauch v. Johnston, 274 Or 441 , 547 P2d 119 (1976); Turner v. Jackson, 139 Or 539, 560 , 11 P2d 1048 (1932). See also Edenfield v. Woodlawn Manor, Inc., 62 Tenn App 280, 462 SW2d 237 (1971).

Big Moose Development Inc. v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 11, 2013

Defendant was represented by Jeff Sanders (Sanders), Oregon Registered Appraiser III, and Jeff Brown (Brown), Residential Appeals Lead Appraiser, Multnomah County Assessor‟s office. … Plaintiff appealed the assessor‟s values to the Multnomah County Board of Property Tax Appeals (Board) and the Board sustained the values.

Pavlicek v. State Industrial Accident Commission

235 Or. 490 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1963

The workman rejected the order and a board of medical review was subsequently selected. The workman was examined by the board. The board concurred in the decision of the Commission and the case was closed. … The workman has advanced most of the same arguments that were rejected in White v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 227 Or 306 , 362 P2d 302 (1961).

State v. Amini

331 Or. 386 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 14, 2000

Ricco v. … In State v.

Ohlig v. FMC Marine & Rail Equipment Division

291 Or. 586 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1981

In adopting this line of reasoning, the Court of Appeals relied on three of its own cases, Vandehey v. Pumilite Glass & Building Co., 35 Or App 187 , 580 P2d 1068 (1978); Smith v. … Amalgamated Sugar Co., 25 Or App 243 , 548 P2d 1329 (1976); and Grudle v. S.A.I.F., 4 Or App 326 , 479 P2d 250 (1971). The court noted our decision in Cavins v.

Robinson v. Nabisco, Inc.

143 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 28, 1996

In Hicks v. … We note that the Board was without the benefit of our decision in Barrett Business Services v.