Case law

Dean v. Exotic Veneers, Inc.

271 Or. 188 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1975

Gladden, 215 Or 129 , 332 P2d 641 (1958); Brown v. Brown, 142 Or 275 , 19 P2d 428 (1933); Gust v. Edwards Co., 129 Or 409 , 274 P 919 (1929); Salene v. Isherwood, 74 Or 35 , 144 P 1175 (1914); Yuen Suey v. … Fleshman, 65 Or 606 , 133 P 803 , Ann Cas 1915A 1072 (1913); Belle v. Brown, 37 Or 588 , 61 P 1024 (1900). In Gust v.

McLean v. Pine Eagle School District, No. 61

194 F. Supp. 3d 1102 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 1, 2016

Plaintiff argues that the Safety Committee’s decisions were not constrained by any school board policy or subject to review by the board. Plaintiff adds that this case is similar to the facts in Hyland v. … Pine Eagle’s other school board members also did not learn about the drill until after it happened. . In Flores v.

Cameron Logging v. Jones

109 Or. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 30, 1991

Armstrong v. Asten-Hill Co., 90 Or App 200, 205 , 752 P2d 312 (1988). Although the order contains explicit findings of fact, it does not explain why they lead to the Board’s conclusions. … Misallocation of the burden of proof is a procedural error, Harris v.

Gunsolley v. Bushby

19 Or. App. 884 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 23, 1974

The relevant authorities are: Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593 , 92 S Ct 2694 , 92 S Ct 2717 , 33 L Ed 2d 570 (1972); Papadopoulos v. … of Regents v.

Compton v. SAIF Corp.

195 Or. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 15, 2004

See Cope v. West American Ins. … We review the board’s conclusion as a matter of law, Henderson v. S.D. Deacon Corp., 127 Or App 333, 337 , 874 P2d 76 (1994), and agree that claimant’s injury did not occur in the course of employment.

O'Brien v. Employment Division

35 Or. App. 773 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 22, 1978

The applicable rule was stated in Stevenson v. … The Board’s findings of fact are supported by the requisite amount of evidence and its conclusion based on those findings is correct as a matter of law. See, Baker v.

Mesa v. Barker Manufacturing Co.

66 Or. App. 161 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 14, 1983

We held in Forney v. … Employer argues that Woodman v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 289 Or 551 , 614 P2d 1162 (1980), is controlling in the case.

Kuhn v. SAIF Corp.

73 Or. App. 768 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 22, 1985

SAIF petitioned for Board review. Relying on our opinion in Giesbrecht v. SAIF, 58 Or App 218 , 648 P2d 70 (1982), the Board first determined that it was improper for the referee to find Dr. … Garbutt v. SAIF, 297 Or 148, 151 , 681 P2d 1149 (1984); Hoke v. Libby, McNeil & Libby, 73 Or App 44, 46 , 697 P2d 993 (1985). Dr.

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Knapp

100 Or. App. 615 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 7, 1990

The Board affirmed. Employer did not pay benefits for temporary total disability, apparently reasoning, in reliance on Cutwright v. … In the first review, we affirmed the Board’s order of June 17, 1986, without opinion. Weyerhaeuser Company v. Knapp, 85 Or App 220 , 736 P2d 230 (1987).

State v. Jones

109 Or. App. 235 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 16, 1991

In State v. … The reference to the parole board is overbroad. The sentence should have solely referred to the discretion of the court. Accordingly, we overrule the portion of Noble that pertains to the parole board.

Fazzolari v. Portland School District No. 1J

78 Or. App. 608 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 16, 1986

Stewart v. … Plaintiff asserts that Brown v. J.C. Penney Co., supra, n 1, controls.

Miller v. Union County

48 Or. 266 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1906

Pep. 758); McCall v. Marion County, 43 Or. 536 ( 73 Pac. 1031 , 75 Pac. 140 ). In Hammer v. … Since the opinion in Hammer v.

State v. Cannon

304 Or. App. 843 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 17, 2020

Brown, Deputy Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services. … In Ramos v. Louisiana, ___ US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. In State v.

State v. Milbradt

305 Or. 621 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 17, 1988

Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984). … In State v. Middleton, this court allowed in testimony concerning normal reactions to abuse but did so before we decided State u. Brown.

Stone v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

294 Or. 442 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1983

SAIF raised no challenge to the compensation award on appeal to the Board. … Co. v. Watkins, 264 Or 464 , 506 P2d 179 (1973). The concession was really an admission that claimant was entitled to interim compensation. Cf. Johnson v. Paulson, 83 Or 238 , 154 P 685 , 163 P 435 (1917).

Teel v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

58 Or. App. 564 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 18, 1982

Employer properly concedes that the Board was required to award a reasonable attorney fee, because claimant prevailed on the employer-initiated appeal to the Board on the issue of compensability. … Claimant is entitled to the award of a reasonable attorney fee for his attorney’s representation on the compensation issue, but not on the penalty issue on which the employer prevailed before the Board. See Korter v.

Claypool v. O'Neill

65 Or. 511 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1913

In Gardner v. … This covers the only question raised by O’Neill’s objections to the findings of the board of control, and necessitates a reversal of the decree of the Circuit Court by which it is adjudged that the decree in O’Neill v.

State v. Volynets-Vasylchenko

246 Or. App. 632 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 23, 2011

In State v. … Brown, 241 Or App 226, 232 , 250 P3d 386 (2011); and that the error did not usurp the jury’s factfinding function because the same jury acquitted the defendant on other charges, State v.

Mercer Industries v. Rose

100 Or. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 17, 1990

On review, the Board assigned responsibility to Mercer but refused to award attorney fees to claimant. The Board stated that SAIF v. … We do not read Short to overrule SAIF v. Phipps, supra, sub silentio. The Board also cited Cascade Corporation v. Rose, 92 Or App 663 , 759 P2d 1127 (1988); Hunt v.

Taylor v. SAIF

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 15, 2023

See Dotson v. … See OEA v.