Case law

Armstrong v. SAIF Corp.

65 Or. App. 809 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 30, 1983

We dismissed a previous appeal on the ground that it was not brought within 30 days from the mailing of the order of the Workers’ Compensation Board as required by ORS 659.295(8). Armstrong v. … As part of the petitioning process, claimant’s attorney submitted an affidavit to the court stating that the Chairman of the Workers’ Compensation Board had informed him, after our decision, that the Board had discovered

Shipley v. SAIF Corp.

79 Or. App. 149 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 30, 1986

SAIF requested Board review, and the Board held that SAIF has a lien and allocated the proceeds in accordance with the statute. … Any conflict as to what may be a just and proper distribution shall be resolved by the board.” In Wattenbarger v.

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.

State v. Guggenmos

350 Or. 243 · Oregon Supreme Court · May 5, 2011

In State v. … In State v.

Fitzpatrick v. Sletten

117 Or. 173 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1926

Brown, 102 Or. *177 389, 393 ( 202 Pac. 719, 720 ); Friendly v. Lee, 20 Or. 205 ( 25 Pac. 396 ). The particular items making up the receipts and expenses were immaterial to the issues joined in this action. … J., and Brown and Belt, JJ., concur.

Mattila v. Mason

287 Or. 235 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1979

Thus, as held in Bailey v. … Petitioner contends that custodial arrest, and therefore bail, is one of the "indicia” of a criminal prosecution and, as such, is constitutionally impermissible in a traffic infraction case for reasons stated in Brown v.

Shubert v. Blue Chips

330 Or. 554 · Oregon Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2000

findings that the Board had made. … See Russell v.

Care Ambulance Co. v. Multnomah County

97 Or. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 26, 1989

See Standard Insurance Company v. Washington County, 93 Or App 78 , 761 P2d 534 (1988), pet for rev withdrawn 307 Or 326 (1989). That is the case here. … The court held in a related circuit court action (Care Ambulance Company, Inc. et al v. Multnomah County et al, Multnomah County Circuit Court No.

In re Halttunen

367 Or. 360 · Oregon Supreme Court · Dec 24, 2020

Linn and the board panel. … See Cole/Dinsmore v.

State ex rel. Multnomah County Education Service District v. Dooley

295 Or. 138 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1983

In the meantime, beginning on February 22, 1983, the case of School District No. 1 et al v. Multnomah County Education District, et al, was tried. Neither side called any of the ESD board members as witnesses. … Dept. v. Holland, 290 Or 765, 767 , 625 P2d 1318 (1981); Coin Millwork v. Lbr. & Sawmill Union, 248 Or 617, 620 , 435 P2d 1015 (1968). Cf. Callbeck et al v.

Turner v. Thompson

157 Or. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 4, 1998

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the Board’s initial deferral was impermissible under our decision in Meadows v. … Jones v. Thompson, 156 Or App 226 , 968 P2d 380 (1998). Regarding his argument that the Board lacked authority to require him to undergo a psychological evaluation, we disagree.

State v. Dupree

3 Or. App. 303 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 23, 1970

She admitted she had forged his name to two checks, which she cashed, but denied an intent to defraud, stating she did so at his request because he was too drunk to sign his own name. *306 In State v. … Frye, 2 Or App 192 , 465 P2d 736 (1970), we said: “The standards which the trial court may expect of its probationers are set forth in Barker v.

Lane County School District 4J v. Oregon School Activities Ass'n

212 Or. App. 373 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 2, 2007

Liberty v. State of Oregon, 200 Or App 607, 613 (2005); see also Walter v. Scherzinger, 339 Or 408, 423-24 (2005) (giving ‘service’ its plain meaning); Keller v. Armstrong Industries, Inc., 197 Or App 450 (2005). … PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 611 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993).

Granner v. Fairview Center

147 Or. App. 406 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 16, 1997

The Board disagreed, 2 stating: “Although Dr. … Georgia-Pacific v. Piwowar, 305 Or 494, 501 , 753 P2d *410 948 (1988) (citing Bauman v. SAIF, 295 Or 788, 794 , 670 P2d 1027 (1983)).

State v. MacY

295 Or. 738 · Oregon Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1983

In the case of a life sentence, under the current statute only the Parole Board may determine the period of *742 actual incarceration of the individual so sentenced. … The Court of Appeals is reversed and that portion of the sentence imposing a 10-year minimum is vacated. 1 In State v. Reams, 292 Or 1 , 636 P2d 913 (1981), this court cited State v.

State v. Mahon

17 Or. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 15, 1974

As in State v. Brown, 1 Or App 322 , 461 P2d 836 (1969), Sup Ct review denied (1970), State v. Stanton, 7 Or App 286 , 490 P2d 1274 (1971), and State v. … See also, State v. Bauer, 16 Or App 443, 446 , 519 P2d 96 , Sup Ct review denied (1974). The officer’s visual observations were not, therefore, a constitutionally impermissible *180 search. State v. Brown; State v.

Newell v. Saif Corp.

134 Or. App. 625 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 31, 1995

As SAIF concedes, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Niccum v. … Accordingly, we remand for the Board to consider this question. With respect to claimant’s claim for symptoms in her right forearm and hand, we affirm the Board’s opinion without discussion. Reversed and remanded. .

United States v. Lonseth

300 F. Supp. 857 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 11, 1969

Stain v. United States, 235 F.2d 339 (9th Cir. 1956). … This much-quoted language from Dickinson v.

SAIF Corp. v. Basham

112 Or. App. 6 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 4, 1992

Aetna Casualty Co. v. Aschbacher, 107 Or App 494 , 812 P2d 844 , rev den 312 Or 150 (1991). … The circumstances under which we may simply remand a case do not include an error of law of the type in Aetna Casualty Co. v.

Mahler v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 367 · Oregon Tax Court · May 31, 1990

Defendant believes that plaintiff simply filed his petition to the board of equalization late. He was denied relief by the board and, in turn, by the defendant. … Rothenfluch v. Dept. of Rev., 11 OTR 322 (1990). In this case, the taxpayer was not told that the promised notice would extend the time to appeal.