Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Mount v. Department of Consumer & Business Services
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided May 8, 2002No. 97-08823; A103636PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1ConcurrenceEdmonds, J.
The majority opinion in this case consists of a per curiam citation to Trujillo v. Pacific Safety Supply, 181 Or App 302, 45 P3d 1017 (2002). I agree with the dissent’s analysis in Trujillo. Therefore, it is necessary to explain why I agree with the dissent in Trujillo and yet concur with the majority in this case.
Under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 333, 96 S Ct 893, 47 L Ed 2d 18 (1976), the relevant factors to determine what due process requires in a particular administrative proceeding include the probable value of an evidentiary hearing. Where issues of the worker’s own credibility and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2000
- Fister v. South Hills Health CareCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- Trujillo v. Pacific Safety SupplyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- Logsdon v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Trujillo v. Pacific Safety SupplyOregon Supreme Court · 2004
- Logsdon v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- Logsdon v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- Mount v. Department of Consumer & Business ServicesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- Trujillo v. Pacific Safety SupplyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.