holding that a judicial decision favors a petitioner if on remand the agency will be required fundamentally to reassess its determination
Summary of this case from Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment DepartmentNovember 22, 1983.
holding that a judicial decision favors a petitioner if on remand the agency will be required fundamentally to reassess its determination
Summary of this case from Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Departmentstating that the "fact that a petitioner could have told a hired painter how to do the work he undertook, including what and where to paint, was ‘not the kind of ability to control that the statute refers to. * * * Obviously a contract will specify what is to be painted and, [even] if impliedly, will ordinarily require that the work be done in an acceptable manner. That does not necessarily mean that there is an employment relationship.’ " (See also Avanti, 248 Or. App. at 461, 274 P.3d 190.)
Summary of this case from Nat'l Maint. Contractors, LLC v. Emp't Dep'tFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ALLOWED AND DENIED
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Nov 22, 1983
We ultimately conclude that the trial court's judgment was "in favor" of petitioners. We turn first to…
Zidell Marine Corp. v. West Painting, Inc.The Supreme Court examined the legislative history of the amendments and concluded that nothing in the…