Case law

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).

Mosley v. Sacred Heart Hospital

113 Or. App. 234 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 27, 1992

SAIF denied the claim and moved to join Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation (Liberty), Sacred Heart’s subsequent insurer in 1990, based on Runft v. SAIF, 303 Or 493 , 739 P2d 12 (1987). Liberty issued a denial. … Claimant sought Board review but served notice only on Sacred Heart. No timely notice was sent to OML or its insurer. Relying on Zurich Ins. Co. v.

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.

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Paauwe

294 Or. 171 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1982

See In re Lathen, supra, and Cook v. … The Trial Board found there was no evidence that there was any merit to the appeal. The Disciplinary Review Board agreed with the Trial Board.

Wampler v. Palmerton

250 Or. 65 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1968

Con zelmann v. N.W.P. & D. Prod. … Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 189 Misc 1024 , 88 NYS2d 914 , 920 (S Ct 1947); Said v. Butt [1920] 3 K B 497.

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.

State v. Jenks

43 Or. App. 221 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 13, 1979

Defendant argues that holding him after the period or arraignment 1 had expired constituted an unlawful letention and that, therefore, pursuant to Brown v. … See State v. Shipley, 232 Or 354 , 375 P2d 237 (1962), cert den 374 US 811 , 83 S Ct 1701 , 10 L Ed 2d 1034 (1963); State v. Sunderland, 4 Or App 1 , 468 P2d 900 , 476 P2d 563 (1970).

Reid v. Kier

175 Or. 192 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1944

In Thorp v. … Strong v. Kamm & Brown, 13 Or. 172 , 9 Pac. 331 (1886); Feldman v. McGuire, 34 Or. 309 , 55 Pac. 872 (1889); Miles v. Bowers, 49 Or. 429 , 90 Pac. 905 (1907); The Home v. Selling, 91 Or. 428 , 179 Pac. 261 (1919).’

Stueve v. Everett

11 Or. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 25, 1972

Winslow v. … However, in City of Portland v.

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).

Constantine v. Employment Department

200 Or. App. 677 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 27, 2005

, claimant contends that the board’s conclusion does not follow from its findings of fact, that the board’s decision is inconsistent with Employment Department policy, and that the board’s decision is inconsistent with both … Ponder v. Employment Dept., 171 Or App 435, 448 , 15 P3d 602 (2000).

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.

Hedlund v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.

55 Or. App. 313 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 30, 1981

Taylor v. SAIF, 40 Or App 437 , 595 P2d 515 , rev den 287 Or 477 (1979). … The Board erred in doing so. 3 The Board also decreased the referee’s award of attorney’s fees.

Miltenberger v. Howard's Plumbing

93 Or. App. 475 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 19, 1988

See Employment Div. v. Western Graphics Corp., 76 Or App 608, 612 , 710 P2d 788 (1985). Claimant’s condition worsened in August, 1985, over six years after the date of the nondisabling injury. … The Board was not estopped from exercising its own motion jurisdiction.

Oliver v. Norstar, Inc.

116 Or. App. 333 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 12, 1992

We agree with the Board that, when the misconduct is such that a penalty may be assessed under ORS 656.262(10), no fees are available under ORS 656.382(1). See Martinez v. … Accordingly, we agree with the Board that attorney fees are not available under ORS 656.382. Affirmed.

Portland Adventist Medical Center v. Buckallew

124 Or. App. 141 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 20, 1993

We review to determine whether the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. ORS 656.298(6); ORS 183.482(8); Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 309 Or 292, 295 , 787 P2d 884 (1990). We affirm. … Corp. v.

Kienow's Food Stores, Inc. v. Lyster

79 Or. App. 416 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 21, 1986

See Gallea v. Willamette Industries, 56 Or App 763 , 643 P2d 390 (1982). … The conclusions of the referee and the Board are amply supported by the record.

Metropolitan Property & Casualty v. Harper

168 Or. App. 358 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 7, 2000

See State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 409 , 687 P2d 751 (1984) (expert testimony is admissible if it is relevant and helpful to the trier of fact). … See Brown, 297 Or at 705.

Skookum Co., Inc. v. Employment Division

276 Or. 303 · Oregon Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1976

The Appeals Board affirmed, one member dissenting. … On appeal from a decision of the Employment Appeals Board, our review is limited to an examination of the record to determine if there is substantial evidence to support that decision. See Bay v.

Oregon v. Davis

42 Or. 34 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1903

App. 286 ( 51 Pac. 62 ); Davis v. Clark, 58 Kan. 454 ( 49 Pac. 665 ); Sonoma County v. Hall, 132 Cal. 589 ( 62 Pac. 257 , 312, 65 Pac. 12 , 459); Ware v. State, 74 Ind. 181 ; Ada County v. Ellis (Idaho), 48 Pac. 1071 . … App. 286 ( 51 Pac. 62 ); Merchants’ Bank v. Rawls, 21 Ga. 289 ; State to use v. Dailey, 4 Mo. App. 172 ; Lyle v. *40 Murray, 4 Sandf. 390 .