1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 917 P.2d
  5. 917 P.2d 55 (1996)
 

LANKFORD v. COPELAND

WCB 92-06391; CA A82936.

917 P.2d 55 (1996)

141 Or. App. 138

In the Matter of the Compensation of Cindy Lankford, Claimant. Cindy LANKFORD, Petitioner-Cross-Respondent, v. Claude COPELAND, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner, and Department of Consumer and Business Services, Respondent-Cross-Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided May 22, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David R. Nepom, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner— cross-respondent.

Willard E. Fox, Salem, argued the cause for respondent—cross-petitioner. With him on the brief was Allen Stortz Fox Susee & Olson.

Stephanie L. Striffler, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent— cross-respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before RICHARDSON, C.J., and De MUNIZ and LEESON, JJ.

RICHARDSON, Chief Judge.

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Board that held that she was not a worker subject to the Act because her employment with Copeland was casual. ORS 656.027(3). Copeland cross-petitions, contending that the Board erred in holding that claimant was a "casual worker" because, he contends, claimant was not a worker, ORS 656.005(30), and, therefore, was not covered by the workers...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases