letter rule in Oregon

2015Again, even after acknowledging that compliance with “the letter of the rule is required,” id. at 135 , this court disagreed.

2014Regardless of whether the letter from the director was binding on the city, the court concluded, both the letter and the rule indicated that the written response to the director was only an interim step in the administra- tive review process. 255 Or App at 783-84 .

2014Regardless of whether the letter from the director was binding on the city, the court concluded, both the letter and the rule indicated that the written response to the director was only an interim step in the administrative review process. 255 Or App at 783-84 .

2008See In re Leuenberger, 337 Or 183, 212 , 93 P3d 786 (2004) (lawyer did not advise client to seek independent counsel regarding his conflict of interest and did not confirm advice in writing); Lawrence, 332 Or at 512 (court rejected lawyer’s argument that he complied with “spirit” rather than “the letter of DR 10-101” in failing to advise client in writing of the potential conflict of interest); In re Barber, 322 Or 194, 196 , 904 P2d 620 (1995) (lawyer sanctioned because he “never disclosed in writing the nature and extent of a likely or *136 actual conflict of interest, nor did he advise his

2008See In re Leuenberger, 337 Or 183, 212 , 93 P3d 786 (2004) (lawyer did not advise client to seek independent counsel regarding his conflict of interest and did not confirm advice in writing); Lawrence, 332 Or at 512 (court rejected lawyer’s argument that he complied with “spirit” rather than “the letter of DR 10-101” in failing to advise client in writing of the potential conflict of interest); In re Barber, 322 Or 194, 196 , 904 P2d 620 (1995) (lawyer sanctioned because he “never disclosed in writing the nature and extent of a likely or *136 actual conflict of interest, nor did he advise his

2008See In re Leuenberger, 337 Or 183, 212 , 93 P3d 786 (2004) (lawyer did not advise client to seek independent counsel regarding his conflict of interest and did not confirm advice in writing); Lawrence, 332 Or at 512 (court rejected lawyer’s argument that he complied with “spirit” rather than “the letter of DR 10-101” in failing to advise client in writing of the potential conflict of interest); In re Barber, 322 Or 194, 196 , 904 P2d 620 (1995) (lawyer sanctioned because he “never disclosed in writing the nature and extent of a likely or *136 actual conflict of interest, nor did he advise his

2008See In re Leuenberger, 337 Or 183, 212 , 93 P3d 786 (2004) (lawyer did not advise client to seek independent counsel regarding his conflict of interest and did not confirm advice in writing); Lawrence, 332 Or at 512 (court rejected lawyer’s argument that he complied with “spirit” rather than “the letter of DR 10-101” in failing to advise client in writing of the potential conflict of interest); In re Barber, 322 Or 194, 196 , 904 P2d 620 (1995) (lawyer sanctioned because he “never disclosed in writing the nature and extent of a likely or *136 actual conflict of interest, nor did he advise his

2008See In re Leuenberger, 337 Or 183, 212 , 93 P3d 786 (2004) (lawyer did not advise client to seek independent counsel regarding his conflict of interest and did not confirm advice in writing); Lawrence, 332 Or at 512 (court rejected lawyer’s argument that he complied with “spirit” rather than “the letter of DR 10-101” in failing to advise client in writing of the potential conflict of interest); In re Barber, 322 Or 194, 196 , 904 P2d 620 (1995) (lawyer sanctioned because he “never disclosed in writing the nature and extent of a likely or *136 actual conflict of interest, nor did he advise his

2008See In re Leuenberger, 337 Or 183, 212 , 93 P3d 786 (2004) (lawyer did not advise client to seek independent counsel regarding his conflict of interest and did not confirm advice in writing); Lawrence, 332 Or at 512 (court rejected lawyer’s argument that he complied with “spirit” rather than “the letter of DR 10-101” in failing to advise client in writing of the potential conflict of interest); In re Barber, 322 Or 194, 196 , 904 P2d 620 (1995) (lawyer sanctioned because he “never disclosed in writing the nature and extent of a likely or *136 actual conflict of interest, nor did he advise his

1994Flowers v. Board of Parole, 124 Or App 331 , 862 P2d 1312 (1993).

1994Flowers v. Board of Parole, 124 Or App 331 , 862 P2d 1312 (1993).

1993Paragraph (3)(d) merely states explicitly what is implicit in OAR 105-80-003(3) — the pre-termination hearing is the place to present rebutting or mitigating evidence. 6 *552 The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that defendant “was forced to relinquish his constitutional right to remain silent in order to gain his right to a full due process hearing.” 114 Or App at 280 .

1983As in Vandehey v. Pumilite Glass & Building Co., 35 Or App 187 , 580 P2d 1068 (1978), the question is whether the letter was a claim.

1983As in Vandehey v. Pumilite Glass & Building Co., 35 Or App 187 , 580 P2d 1068 (1978), the question is whether the letter was a claim.

1980In a letter dated June 27, 1979, the Oregon Department of Revenue advised the defendant and his wife (who had signed the return with him) that the form filed did not meet the statutory requirements of ORS Chapter 316 and quoted from the case of US. v. Porth, 426 F2d 519 (10th Cir 1970), 25 AFTR2d 70-961, 70-1 USTC ¶ 9329 , cert denied, 400 US 824 , 91 S Ct 47 , 27 L Ed2d 53 (1970): "* * * A taxpayer’s return which does not contain any information relating to the taxpayer’s income from which the tax can be computed is not a return within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code or the regulatio

1980In a letter dated June 27, 1979, the Oregon Department of Revenue advised the defendant and his wife (who had signed the return with him) that the form filed did not meet the statutory requirements of ORS Chapter 316 and quoted from the case of US. v. Porth, 426 F2d 519 (10th Cir 1970), 25 AFTR2d 70-961, 70-1 USTC ¶ 9329 , cert denied, 400 US 824 , 91 S Ct 47 , 27 L Ed2d 53 (1970): "* * * A taxpayer’s return which does not contain any information relating to the taxpayer’s income from which the tax can be computed is not a return within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code or the regulatio

1976ORS 41.690 provides, however, that to be admissible as a business record a document must have been made "at or near the time of the act, condition or event.” It appears on the face of the letter that this requirement was not satisfied, at least as to some of the events referred to in that letter, even if it was otherwise admissible as a business record. 17 Accordingly, the trial court did not err in rejecting the letter despite the fact that the objection (although including the general ground of "hearsay”), was not made on that specific ground. 18 For all of these reasons, the judgment of the

1976ORS 41.690 provides, however, that to be admissible as a business record a document must have been made "at or near the time of the act, condition or event.” It appears on the face of the letter that this requirement was not satisfied, at least as to some of the events referred to in that letter, even if it was otherwise admissible as a business record. 17 Accordingly, the trial court did not err in rejecting the letter despite the fact that the objection (although including the general ground of "hearsay”), was not made on that specific ground. 18 For all of these reasons, the judgment of the

1976ORS 41.690 provides, however, that to be admissible as a business record a document must have been made "at or near the time of the act, condition or event.” It appears on the face of the letter that this requirement was not satisfied, at least as to some of the events referred to in that letter, even if it was otherwise admissible as a business record. 17 Accordingly, the trial court did not err in rejecting the letter despite the fact that the objection (although including the general ground of "hearsay”), was not made on that specific ground. 18 For all of these reasons, the judgment of the

1976ORS 41.690 provides, however, that to be admissible as a business record a document must have been made "at or near the time of the act, condition or event.” It appears on the face of the letter that this requirement was not satisfied, at least as to some of the events referred to in that letter, even if it was otherwise admissible as a business record. 17 Accordingly, the trial court did not err in rejecting the letter despite the fact that the objection (although including the general ground of "hearsay”), was not made on that specific ground. 18 For all of these reasons, the judgment of the

1935The plaintiff cites Meaney v. State Industrial Accident Commission, 113 Or. 371 ( 227 P. 305 , 232 P. 789 ). *526 The doctrine of that case is that the right of appeal was not limited to the final action of the commission on the original application hut extended to any subsequent final action of the commission upon an application for allowance based upon aggravation of the injury or the termination of an allowance theretofore made.

1935The plaintiff cites Meaney v. State Industrial Accident Commission, 113 Or. 371 ( 227 P. 305 , 232 P. 789 ). *526 The doctrine of that case is that the right of appeal was not limited to the final action of the commission on the original application hut extended to any subsequent final action of the commission upon an application for allowance based upon aggravation of the injury or the termination of an allowance theretofore made.