Skip to main content
· 5/3/2006

Ring v. Employment Department

Citations

  • 134 P.3d 1096
  • 205 Or. App. 532
  • 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 582

How courts have described this case

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

  • distinguishing department 3 The parties do not dispute—and we agree—that this matter is properly before us. Given our disposition on the third assignment of error, the validity of the amended order is immaterial. Cite as 320 Or App 205 (2022

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Landau, Schuman, Ortega

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.