Schoch v. Leupold & Stevens
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.
Claimant petitions for review of a Court of Appeals’ decision that affirmed an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) awarding an attorney fee. She argues that the order does not contain sufficient information to permit an appellate court to review the Board’s exercise of discretion in setting a reasonable attorney fee. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. Schoch v. Leupold & Stevens, 137 Or App 633, 906 P2d 870 (1995). For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand to the Board for further consideration of its order awarding an attorney fee.
In 1990, claimant suffered…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Drew v. Psychiatric Security Review BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1996
- Ross v. Springfield School District No. 19Oregon Supreme Court · 1982
- Garbutt v. SAIF Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1984
- Williams v. Saif Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1990
3Cited by32 opinions
- Friends of Yamhill County, Inc. v. Board of CommissionersOregon Supreme Court · 2011
- SAIF Corp. v. JanuaryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
- SAIF Corp. v. WartCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
- Cummings v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- Taylor v. SAIF Corp. (In re Taylor)Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.