Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of the Compensation of Mar v. n C. Wright, Claimant. SAIF CORPORATION, Petitioner,

RICHARDSON, P.J.

Claimant petitions for review of our decision, 102 Or. App. 598, 795 P.2d 604 (1990), and we treat the matter as a petition for reconsideration. ORAP 9.15. Claimant seeks reconsider ation of our designation of SAIF as the prevailing party and our order denying his petition for attorney fees pursuant to ORS 656.390. We allow reconsideration and modify our opinion to designate claimant as the prevailing party. We deny reconsideration of claimant's petition for attorney fees.

We concluded that the Board did not have authority to rule on SAIF's motion, reversed its decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss SAIF's motion. Because the Board's decision was reversed and the case remanded, we designated SAIF as the prevailing party. However, the Board had denied SAIF the relief that it sought, and we concurred in that denial but for a different reason. Consequently, the opinion is modified to delete its last sentence (but not note 2), and the disposition is changed to read:

"Motion to dismiss petition for judicial review denied; motion for attorney fees denied; affirmed."

Claimant is designated as the prevailing party, and costs are allowed to him, payable by SAIF.

Reconsideration allowed; decision modified to designate claimant as prevailing party; affirmed as modified.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SAIF v. WRIGHT
(Nov 21, 1990)