Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion · Dissent

Carillo v. Employment Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 12, 1987No. EAB 85-AB-1632; CA A38157Published

1DissentRossman, J.

This is a close case with competing policy considerations. The majority opinion is strong and well-reasoned on the administrative law issue. However, because I agree with the weight of authority on this subject, I respectfully dissent.

*210LEGAL AVAILABILITY

The majority correctly states that neither ORS 657.155(1)(c) nor OAR 471-30-036(3) explicitly defines alien availability for work in terms of an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) authorization. However, I believe that the Division is correct that the term “available for work” implies legal availability for work. The statutory and…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Sure-Tan, Inc. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Duenas-Rodriguez v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1980
  3. Bastas v. Bd. of Review Dep't of Labor and Ind.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1978
  4. Vespremi v. GilesOhio Court of Appeals · 1980
  5. Pinilla v. BD. OF REVIEW DEP'T OF LABOR AND IND.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1978

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API