Case law

SAIF Corp. v. Tono

265 Or. App. 525 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 17, 2014

BACKGROUND This case arises on SAIF Corporation’s (SAIF’s) petition for judicial review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (board). … The parties do not challenge the board’s factual findings. We therefore take the facts from the board’s order, supplementing with consistent facts from the record as necessary. Meltebeke v.

Dippold v. Cathlamet Timber Co.

98 Or. 183 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1920

BROWN, J. 1. What assignments' of error, if any, we shall here consider and decide, depends upon onr determination of the question of jurisdiction. … To like effect see Smith v. Benson, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 176; Leland v. Gassett, 17 Vt. 403 ; Dolliver v. Ela, 128 Mass. 557 ; Brown v. Fox, 12 Misc. Rep. 147 ( 33 N. Y. Supp. 57 ); Godard v. Gould, 14 Barb. (N.

Conner v. B & S LOGGING

153 Or. App. 354 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 1, 1998

The Board subsequently adopted and affirmed the ALJ’s order and supplemented it with its own conclusion that the resolution of the claim was governed by Industrial Indemnity Co. v. … Tektronix, Inc. v.

Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc. v. Parker

148 Or. App. 6 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 7, 1997

Relying on our opinion in Lebanon Plywood v. Seiber, 113 Or App 651 , 833 P2d 1367 (1992), *12 employer argues that the Board cannot order it to pay benefits to which claimant was not entitled. Again, we disagree. … In contrast, in Anodizing, Inc. v. Heath, 129 Or App 352 , 879 P2d 218 (1994), the claimant’s temporary disability benefits were due the date that they were ordered by the ALJ.

Matter of Compensation of Barrett

60 Or. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 1, 1982

Fundamental fairness dictates that the board should not decide a claim on the basis of evidence not in the record or on issues not briefed before it. Neely v. … The board’s de novo review is on the record submitted before it, as is ours. Neely v. SAIF, supra. We have not yet ruled on the retroactive effect, if any, of ORS 656.273.

Tee v. Albertson's, Inc.

107 Or. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jun 19, 1991

Lankford v. Commodore Corporation, 92 Or App 622, 625 , 759 P2d 329 (1988); Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Perry, 92 Or App 56 , 757 P2d 437 , rev den 307 Or 77 (1988); Pournelle v. … Claimant relies on Frame v.

Stewart v. City of Salem

240 Or. App. 466 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 26, 2011

The board reversed the city's decision and ordered it to approve petitioner's partition application. We affirmed the board's determination on review, Stewart v. … See Parquit Corp. v.

Bayer v. Goldschmidt

17 Or. App. 334 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 6, 1974

No claim is made that the Board acted erroneously, i.e., made procedural errors, or exceeded its jurisdiction. See Baker v. Steele et al, 229 Or 498, *336 501 , 366 P2d 726 (1961); Bechtold et al. v. … Evans v. Schrunk, supra.

Caples v. McNaught

147 Or. 72 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1934

In the above named case of Bing v. … As changes may occur the legislature has wisely authorized the board to make and alter rules for the government of such pilots.

DeNucci v. Henningsen

248 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 2012

Mastriano v. Board of Parole, 342 Or 684, 693 , 159 P3d 1151 (2007); Joshi v. Providence Health System, 342 Or 152, 158 , 149 P3d 1164 (2006). … See Brown v. J. C.

State v. Logan

273 Or. App. 323 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 26, 2015

State v. Brown, 272 Or App 424, 428 , 355 P3d 216 (2015). … Brown, 272 Or App at 435 (failure to give Leistiko instruction is not plain error under OEC 404(4)); State v.

Hutchison v. Lake Oswego School District No. 7

374 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 25, 1974

Westerville Board of Education, 345 F.Supp. 501 (S.D.Ohio E.D.1972). I agree with the District Court’s holding in Cohen v. … Green v. Waterford Board of Education, 473 F.2d 629 (2nd Cir. *1065 1973); Bravo v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 345 F.Supp. 155 (N.D.Ill.E.D.1972); Williams v.

State v. Randolph

17 L.R.A. 470 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1892

In State v. State Med. Ex. Board, 32 Minn. 324 ( 20 N. W. Rep. 238 ; 50 Am. … See also State v. State Med. Ex. Board, 32 Minn. 325 ( 20 N. W. Rep. 238 ; 50 Am. Rep. 575 ); State ex rel. v. Green, 112 Ind. 462 (14 N. E. Rep. 352); State v. Dent, 25 W.

Neppach v. Oregon & Cal. Railroad

46 Or. 374 · Oregon Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1905

Frauds, § 454 et seq.; Brown, Stat. Frauds (4 ed.), § 411; Abell v. Munson, 18 Mich. 306 ( 100 Am. Dec. 165 , 169, note); Bradley v. Harter, 156 Ind. 499 ( 60 N. E. 139 ); Warren v. Mayer Mfg. Co. 161 Mo. 112 ( 61 S. … Co. v. Pratt, 64 Kan. 118 ( 67 Pac. 464 ); Brown, Stat. Frauds, §§ 424, 425; Longfellow v. Moore, 102 Ill. 289 ; Sheridan v. Nation, 159 Mo. 27 ( 59 S. W. 972 ); Long v. Hartwell, 34 N. J. Law, 116; Scheerschmidt v.

Austin v. Premo

280 Or. App. 481 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Aug 31, 2016

See Krummacher v. … .]”); accord, Strickland v.

Pogorelc v. Employment Division

23 Or. App. 555 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Dec 15, 1975

The Board found that claimant failed to accept “available suitable work” when it was offered (ORS 657.176(2)(e)). … The Board reviews the evidence de novo on the record. Stevenson v. Morgan, 17 Or App 428, 431 , 522 P2d 1204 (1974). The analysis of the Board properly applied the standards established by OES 657.190 and 657.195.

State v. Luttrell

93 Or. App. 772 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 9, 1988

State v. Lyon, supra, simply reemphasized the distrust of polygraph evidence that the Supreme Court had already expressed, at greater length, in State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984). … Its result is consistent with the court’s previous discussion in State v. Brown, supra, although Brown did not compel it.

Garoutte v. Mail Well Corp.

200 Or. App. 507 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 6, 2005

Bennett v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 128 Or App 71 , 875 P2d 1176 (1994). … ORS 174.010; PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 611 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993). See SAIF v. Henwood, 176 Or App 431 , 31 P3d 1096 (2001). Claimant met his burden.

State v. Sargent

252 Or. 579 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1969

Foeller v. Housing Authority of Portland, 198 Or 205, 264-268 , 256 *581 P2d 752 (1953); Marr v. Fisher et al, 182 Or 383 , 187 P2d 966 (1947); Van Winkle v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 151 Or 455, 462 , 49 P 2d 1140 (1935). … As in IsTce v.

McPherson v. Employment Division

285 Or. 541 · Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1979

Fajardo v. … The court expressly so stated in reversing the board in Chamblee v. Employment Division, 23 Or App 53, 55 , 541 P2d 165 (1975), citing Baker v. Cameron, supra. The decision closest to the present case, McCain v.