Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. Rogue Federal Credit Union

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 1998No. CC 94-2777-L-2; CA A89715; SC S43980PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.

The issue in this case is whether an employer (defendant) commits an unlawful employment practice under ORS 659.415 by denying an injured worker’s (plaintiff’s) demand for reinstatement during the pendency of litigation over whether the worker’s injury is compensable. The Court of Appeals held that a determination that a worker has sustained a compensable injury is a condition precedent to the worker’s right to reinstatement under ORS 659.415. Armstrong v. Rogue Federal Credit Union, 145 Or App 268, 929 P2d 1066 (1996). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the Court of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Vaughn v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1980
  2. State Ex Rel. Keisling v. NorbladOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Shaw v. Doyle Milling Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1984
  4. County of Bernalillo v. AmbellNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Williams v. Waterway Terminals Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1985

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Villanueva v. Board of Psychologist ExaminersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  3. Petock v. AsanteOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Davis v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation DistrictDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2014
  5. Petock v. AsanteCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API