Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

THOMPSON v. BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, 48 Or. App. 229 (1980)

615 P.2d 1206

Type
Opinion
Court
Orlaw Oregon
Jurisdiction
Orlaw
Date
1980-09-15
Topic
general

THOMPSON v. BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, 48 Or. App. 229 (1980) 615 P.2d 1206 In the Matter of the Compensation of THOMPSON, Petitioner —Cross-Respondent, v. BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, Respondent —Cross-Petitioner. No. 78-7871-E, CA 16118Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted June 12, 1980 Affirmed September 15, 1980 Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed THOMPSON v. BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, 48 Or. App. 229 (1980). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

THOMPSON v. BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION,48 Or. App. 229(1980)
615 P.2d 1206
In the Matter of the Compensation of THOMPSON,Petitioner —
Cross-Respondent,v. BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION,Respondent —
Cross-Petitioner.
No. 78-7871-E, CA 16118
Oregon Court of Appeals.
Argued and submitted June 12, 1980
Affirmed September 15, 1980
Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board.
David W. Hittle, Salem, waived argument for petitioner — cross-respondent. With him on the brief was Olson, Hittle, Gardner Evans, Salem.

Paul De Muniz, Salem, argued the cause for respondent — cross-petitioner. With him on the brief was Garrett, Seideman, Hemann, Robertson De Muniz, P.C., Salem.
Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Roberts and Campbell, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
The attorney's fees issue argued to us in this case was not adequately preserved before the Board. We are in agreement with the Board's factual determination.

Affirmed.Page 230