Crosby v. SAIF Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that State Accident Insurance Fund’s conspiring with employer to eliminate a worker’s entitlement to benefits is not a matter of discretion
• holding that State Accident Insurance Fund's conspiring with employer to eliminate a worker's entitlement to benefits is not a matter of discretion
• concluding that an allegation that SAIF and the plaintiff’s employer “met and agreed” to deprive the plaintiff of a workers’ compensation benefit was sufficient to plead an actionable conspiracy
• concluding that an allegation that SAIF and the plaintiff’s employer “met and agreed” to deprive the plaintiff of a workers’ compensation benefit was sufficient to plead an actionable conspiracy
• holding that district court erred in dismissing conspiracy claim
• ORS 659A.040 (then numbered ORS 659.410) did not preclude a common-law civil conspiracy claim alleging that the defendants conspired to divest the plaintiff of his right to workers’ compensation benefits, because the alleged conduct went beyond what is proscribed by the statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).