Legal Opinion · Dissent

Warnick v. Employment Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 10, 1980No. EAB No. 80-AB-75, CA 16892Published

1DissentThornton, J.

For reasons which follow, I am compelled to disagree with both the reasoning and the result of the majority opinion.

Plainly, under the rule announced by our Supreme Court in McPherson v. Employment Division, 285 Or 541, 591 P2d 1381 (1979), and interpreted by this court in Oliver v. Employment Division, 40 Or App 487, 595 P2d 1252 (1979), the case at bar should be reversed and remanded to the Employment Division with instructions to allow the claim for the reason that, notwithstanding the express holdings in McPherson and Oliver, the Division has never adopted proper rules defining the term…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McPherson v. Employment DivisionOregon Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Oliver v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
  3. Saxon v. Division of State LandsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  4. Fadeley v. Oregon Government Ethics CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1976
  5. D & M Products, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation BoardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API