Case law

Norby v. Saif Corp.

303 Or. 536 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1987

Norby v. SAIF, 82 Or App 157 , 728 P2d 55 (1986). … See Or Laws 1913, ch 112, §§ 21(f) & 21(h); Green v. State Ind. Acc. Com., 197 Or 160 , 251 P2d 437 (1952).

Hunter v. Teledyne Wah Chang

88 Or. App. 282 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 12, 1987

The referee upheld the denial but awarded interim compensation, relying on our decision in Bono v. … The second referee then ruled that, regardless of *285 Bono and the Board’s decision, insurer must pay interim compensation. Insurer sought review, and the Board again reversed. The Board erred. Georgia Pacific v.

State Ex Rel. Kiesel's Estate v. Bishop

169 Or. 448 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1942

The legality of that municipal body was sustained by this court in State v. Nyssa-Arcadia Drainage District , 80 Or. 524 , 157 P. 804 . In 1916 the district issued and sold $70,000 of bonds. … We have carefully read State ex rel. v. Little River Drainage District , 334 Mo. 753 , 68 S.W.2d 671 , upon which the defendants rely.

Chisholm v. State Accident Insurance Fund

26 Or. App. 627 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 30, 1976

The circuit court on appeal from the board order reversed the board and held that the appeal period ran from the date of the correcting order. The state appeals. … In Mendenhall v. SAIF, 16 Or App 136 , 517 P2d 706 , Sup Ct review denied (1974), we said: "In Hammond v.

Parker v. D. R. Johnson Lumber Co.

70 Or. App. 683 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 7, 1984

In affirming the referee, the Board reviewed Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or 788 , 670 P2d 1027 (1983), and stated: “The insurer initially accepted claimant’s claim. … In Bauman v.

Price v. Employment Division

60 Or. App. 279 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 1982

See Beaverton School Dist. v. Employment Division, 29 Or App 487 , 564 P2d 717 (1977), and City of Milwaukie v. Employment Division, 30 Or App 693 , 567 P2d 1061 (1977). … Instead, the Board relies upon two 1977 decisions of this court construing what is good cause for leaving work. The Board’s approach is inappropriate. In Sothras v.

Eastmoreland Hospital v. Reeves

94 Or. App. 698 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 11, 1989

Therefore, the Board may assess a penalty under ORS 656.262(10) based on interim compensation due, but not on medical services. Bono v. SAIF, 298 Or 405, 410-11 , 692 P2d 606 (1984). … Accordingly, claimant is entitled to her reasonable attorney fees for the delay, and we affirm that portion of the Board’s order. See Spivey v. SAIF, 79 Or App 568, 572 , 720 P2d 755 (1986).

Sekermestrovich v. State Accident Insurance Fund

280 Or. 723 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1977

The Workmen’s Compensation Board denied compensation after de novo review of the record on the ground that claimant had not shown *726 good cause under the statute. The Board did not reach the merits. … Brand v. Baker, 42 Or 426, 434 , 71 P 320 (1903). See Carlson v. Bankers Discount Corp. et al, 107 Or 686 , 215 P 986 (1923); Longyear, Admx. v. Edwards, 217 Or 314 , 342 P2d 762 (1959).

Reed v. Labor Force of Oregon

155 Or. App. 595 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 2, 1998

See, e.g., SAIF v. … Our review of the Board’s factual findings is for substantial evidence, ORS 183.482(8)(c), and we cannot say, on this record, that the Board’s conclusion was untenable.

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.

Skochenko v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

118 Or. App. 241 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 17, 1993

Claimant argues that the Board misread their medical opinions. He contends, relying on Asten-Hill Co. v. … See Asten-Hill Co. v. Armstrong, supra. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration of compensability of herniated disc.

Spencer Creek Neighbors v. Lane County

152 Or. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 7, 1998

In Fechtig v. … Fechtig, 150 Or App at 14 (quoting Broyles v. Estate of Brown, 295 Or 795, 800-01 , 671 P2d 94 (1983)).

Bicknell v. State Accident Insurance Fund

8 Or. App. 567 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 30, 1972

The Board and circuit court disagreed and reversed the hearing officer’s order. The burden of proof of employment injury is on the claimant. Coday v. Willamette Tug & Barge, 250 Or 39 , 440 P2d 224 (1968). … Although respectful consideration is given to the findings of the hearing officer, this court, the circuit court and the Board are not bound by those findings. Blisserd v. SAIF, 6 Or App 111 , 486 P2d 1312 (1971).

State v. Wilson

26 Or. App. 915 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 27, 1976

United States v. Russell, 411 US 423 , 93 S Ct 1637 , 36 L Ed 2d 366 (1973). Merely affording the actor an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. State v. … State v. Truxall, 2 Or App 214, 467 P2d 643 (1970).

Oregon Lox Co. v. Nichols

151 Or. App. 531 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 17, 1997

Employer seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board, contending that the Board erred in affirming an order of an administrative law judge (ALJ), which had affirmed the Appellate Review Unit’s order on reconsideration … The resolution of that issue must await another day, because it was not raised at the hearing or before the Board. See Fister v. South Hills Health Care, 149 Or App 214 , 942 P2d 833 (1997).

Skookum Co., Inc. v. Employment Division

24 Or. App. 271 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 3, 1976

The Board decided the issue in the negative. The issue before this court is whether the Board’s order is supported by substantial, reliable and probative evidence in the whole record. ORS 183.480(7)(d). … Abbott Publishing Co. v. Annunzio, 414 Ill 559, 112 NE2d 101, 104 (1953); Jackson et al. v. Rev. Bd., etc., 138 Ind App 528, 215 NE2d 355 (1966); Annotation, 63 ALR3d 88, 208, § 31[b] (1975).

Multifoods Specialty Distribution v. McAtee

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

In SAIF v. … In Sanford v.

ABC Inc. and Combined Affiliates v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 8, 2025

See Lommasson v. School Dist. … See Con-Way, Inc. & Affiliates v.

Publishers Paper Co. v. Morgan

10 Or. App. 94 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 23, 1972

The majority view is well expressed in Campbell Soup Co. v. Div. of Employment Security, 13 NJ 431, 100 A2d 287 (1953), where the court, speaking through Justice William B. … Krauss v. A. & M. Karagheusian, Inc., 13 N.J. 447 [ 100 A2d 277 ] (1953).

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.