Legal Opinion

Matthew v. Juras

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 4, 1974PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFort, J.

Petitioner applied to respondent for aid-to-the-disabled benefits. ORS 412.510 through 412.630. The respondent denied the application on the ground that petitioner was not permanently and totally disabled as defined in ORS 412.510 (3). ① Petitioner seeks judicial review of the resulting order pursuant to ORS 183.480.

He asserts that the evidence establishes he is a disabled person within the statute. Alternatively, he seeks remand to respondent because of alleged procedural errors employed by the Public Welfare Division during the processing, of his claim, resulting in prejudice to his…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Richardson v. PeralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Bay v. State Board of EducationOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  5. Palm Gardens, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. LaMar's Enterprises, Inc. v. Oregon Liquor Control CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1974
  2. C & D Trailer Sales v. Taxation & Revenue DepartmentNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. Amundson v. Adult & Family ServicesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  4. Huckaby v. NewellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1974
  5. Klamath Dental Office, Inc. v. MorganCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1974

2 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