late hearing in Oregon

2025Hendrickson Trucking, Inc. v. ODOT, 270 Or App 633, 644 , 349 P3d 585 (2015) (quoting Gordon, 265 Or App at 728 ; omissions in Hendrickson; brackets omitted); see also id. at 644 (vacating and remanding for reconsider- ation because order did not include a “rationale for deter- mining that petitioner did not have good cause for missing the 30-day deadline,” and was, therefore, not “supported by substantial reason”); Gordon, 265 Or App at 723, 726 (vacat- ing and remanding for reconsideration because order was “inadequate for judicial review as to the rejection of peti- tioner’s late request fo

2025Hendrickson Trucking, Inc. v. ODOT, 270 Or App 633, 644 , 349 P3d 585 (2015) (quoting Gordon, 265 Or App at 728 ; omissions in Hendrickson; brackets omitted); see also id. at 644 (vacating and remanding for reconsider- ation because order did not include a “rationale for deter- mining that petitioner did not have good cause for missing the 30-day deadline,” and was, therefore, not “supported by substantial reason”); Gordon, 265 Or App at 723, 726 (vacat- ing and remanding for reconsideration because order was “inadequate for judicial review as to the rejection of peti- tioner’s late request fo

2014Moreau (EAB Decision ll-AB-2800 (Oct 5, 2011)) and our decision in Meritage at Little Creek v. Employment Dept., 232 Or App 554 , 222 P3d 736 (2009), cases in which reliance on or confusion resulting from misleading advice from the department had constituted good cause for a late hearing request. 4 EAB concluded that (1) “to the extent the employer filed a late request for hearing as the result of the Department’s faulty, misleading or misunderstood advice, good cause has been shown” under Meritage at Little Creek and (2) to the extent that employer filed a late hearing request as the result o

2014Moreau (EAB Decision ll-AB-2800 (Oct 5, 2011)) and our decision in Meritage at Little Creek v. Employment Dept., 232 Or App 554 , 222 P3d 736 (2009), cases in which reliance on or confusion resulting from misleading advice from the department had constituted good cause for a late hearing request. 4 EAB concluded that (1) “to the extent the employer filed a late request for hearing as the result of the Department’s faulty, misleading or misunderstood advice, good cause has been shown” under Meritage at Little Creek and (2) to the extent that employer filed a late hearing request as the result o

2007The court reiterated that DEQ’s failure to serve respondents’ lawyer was “of no consequence,” in light of its earlier conclusion that “no statute or rule required DEQ to do so.” ETU, 205 Or App at 295 .

1989NOTES [1] In Andersen , the court assumed, on the basis of Rodda, that it had the authority to allow a late claim for attorney fees but declined to do so, because "the plaintiff has not made a showing which would justify the court in granting the extension." 265 Or. at 595 n. 1, 510 P.2d 564 . [2] The District Attorney's affidavit further states that counsel decided to stay with her client until the jury returned its verdict. [3] We emphasize that counsel has provided medical documentation both of her medical condition and its affect on her ability to prepare and file a fee petition.

1989NOTES [1] In Andersen , the court assumed, on the basis of Rodda, that it had the authority to allow a late claim for attorney fees but declined to do so, because "the plaintiff has not made a showing which would justify the court in granting the extension." 265 Or. at 595 n. 1, 510 P.2d 564 . [2] The District Attorney's affidavit further states that counsel decided to stay with her client until the jury returned its verdict. [3] We emphasize that counsel has provided medical documentation both of her medical condition and its affect on her ability to prepare and file a fee petition.