Case law

State v. Wilson

111 Or. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 12, 1992

From this list, the Guidelines Board adopted the nonexclusive factors set forth in this rule. … State v. McAlpin, 108 Wn 2d 458, 740 P2d 824 (1987); State v. Nordby, 106 Wn 2d 514, 723 P2d 1117 (1986); State v. Davis, 53 Wash App 306, 766 P2d 1120 (1989).

Currie v. Douglas County

308 Or. App. 235 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 2020

Affirmed. 236 Currie v. Douglas County SHORR, J. Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final opinion and order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). … Relying on Beck v.

Miller v. Water Wonderland Improvement District

326 Or. 306 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1998

[defendant] referenced in other minutes of the board.” … ORS 554.120(1) provides: “The board of directors shall cause to be kept a well-bound book entitled ‘Records of Proceedings of Board of Directors,’ in which shall be recorded minutes of all meetings, proceedings, certificates

Oullette v. Employment Division

34 Or. App. 591 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 30, 1978

In Geraths v. … See Palen v. State Bd. of Higher Education, 18 Or App 442 , 525 P2d 1047 , rev den (1974).

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.

Lloyd v. Employee Benefits Insurance

96 Or. App. 591 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 17, 1989

The referee and the Board have jurisdiction over *594 “matters concerning a claim under ORS 656.001 to 656.794.” ORS 656.708; 2 see also ORS 656.283; ORS 656.289(3); ORS 656.295; SAIF v. … Neither the statutes nor their purposes persuade us that the Board has jurisdiction over what is, after all, a matter between EBI and Bankers Life that does not affect claimant. See EBI Companies v.

Campbell v. Employment Department

256 Or. App. 682 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 15, 2013

Endres v. DMV, 255 Or App 226, 229 , 297 P3d 505 (2013). … Kercher v. Employment Dept., 250 Or App 409, 411 , 280 P3d 1040 (2012).

Christenson v. Thompson

143 Or. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 11, 1996

Meadows v. Schiedler, 143 Or App 213 , 924 P2d 314 (1996). The court erred in dismissing plaintiffs petition. … Reversed and remanded. 1 We have rejected plaintiffs argument made to the trial court that denial of direct judicial review of the Board’s decision violated ex post facto and due process protections. Shelby v.

Sweeney v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 090313c (or.tax 6-30-2009)

Oregon Tax Court · Jun 30, 2009

Plaintiff did not appeal to the county board of property tax appeals (board) in 2006 because she was unaware of the appeal process until after the December 31, 2006, board petition deadline. … See Lee's v. Dept. of Rev. , TC 4830, WL 924976 *1 (Apr 6, 2009) (ruling that statutes do not permit taxpayers to appeal "their own actions in agreeing to values."). B.

Kytola v. Boise Cascade Corp.

78 Or. App. 108 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 26, 1986

On the merits, we agree with employer that the Board applied a proper standard to determine claimant’s continued *112 eligibility for permanent total disability. In Gettman v. … That holding was reaffirmed in Harris v.

Tri-Met, Inc. v. Albrecht

308 Or. 185 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1989

Tri-Met, Inc. v. Albrecht, 95 Or App 155 , 768 P2d 421 (1989). We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the board’s award. … Nor do we see the board’s decision as an exercise of agency “discretion.”

Billington v. Polk County

299 Or. 471 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1985

City of Pendleton v. Kerns, supra, 294 Or at 134 n 7. … LUBA’s reasoning goes against City of Pendleton v. Kerns, supra, and Petersen v.

Northwestern Clearance Co. v. Jennings

106 Or. 291 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1922

Counsel for the motion cite and rely upon the cases of Williams v. Schmidt, 14 Or. 470, 471 ( 13 Pac. 305 ), and Muckle v. Columbia County, 56 Or. 146 ( 108 Pac. 120 ). … J., and Brown and Harris, JJ., concur.

Wamsher v. Brooks Products, Inc.

26 Or. App. 835 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 20, 1976

Compliance Division of the Board received a photocopy of the November 4 letter to the carrier on November 14 and the Board received a copy on December 19, 1974. … "In Fulop v.

Hoke v. Libby, McNeil & Libby

73 Or. App. 44 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 3, 1985

ORS 656.273(1); Brewer v. SAIF, 59 Or App 87, 89-90 , 650 P2d 947 (1982). … Garbutt v. SAIF, supra.

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Hasslen

108 Or. App. 605 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 4, 1991

Fiber Corp. v. … Corp. v. Bird, 99 Or App 560, 564 , 783 P2d 33 (1989), rev den 309 Or 645 (1990). The Board erred in holding that that denial was prospective. The November 15 denial presents a more difficult question.

Sperry, Inc. v. Wells

127 Or. App. 700 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 4, 1994

See Georgia-Pacific v. Piwowar, 305 Or 494 , 753 P2d 948 (1988). … See International Paper Co. v. Pearson, 106 Or App 121 , 806 P2d 189 (1991).

Pease v. Kelly

3 Or. 417 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1869

(Brown v. Gilman, 4 Wheat. 255 ; Fish v. Howland, 1 Paige, 30 ; Hunt v. Waterman, 12 Cal. 30 ; Camden v. Vail, 23 Cal. 633 ; 1st Leading cases in Equity, 365; 27 Ill. 422 .)

D Maintenance Company v. Mischke

84 Or. App. 218 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 11, 1987

The Board reversed on the issue of responsibility on the authority of Retchless v. … In Retchless v.

Rogers v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

153 Or. App. 436 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 22, 1998

Cases such as Smith v. SAIF Corp., 302 Or 396 , 730 P2d 30 (1986), and Fred Meyer, Inc. v. … See SAIF v. Frank, 153 Or App 514 , 960 P2d 873 (1998).