Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Department

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 8, 2003No. 96-T-0123A; A110993Published

1DissentWollheim, J.

The majority concludes that petitioner is entitled to neither mandatory nor discretionary attorney fees under ORS 183.497.1 respectfully dissent.

A partial recapitulation of the facts is instructive. The first time these parties came before us, petitioner was seeking review of a notice of tax assessment issued by the Employment Department (department). We held that the department had incorrectly ignored the ruling of another agency, which the department was required to consider *591under ORS 670.600 and ORS 670.605.1 Kaib’s Roving R.Ph. Agency v. Employment Dept., 161 Or App 290, 984 P2d 886…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. GuzekOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Van Gordon v. Oregon State Board of Dental ExaminersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  4. Gaynor v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  5. FOPPO v. Washington CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996

4 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