Ashby v. Employment Division

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Howland

    545 B.R. 653 (Bankr. D. Or. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Both California and Oregon follow the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 1, which defines a contract as "a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty." See, e.g., Schaefer v. Williams, 15 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1246, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 212 (1993) ; and Ashby v. Emp't Div., 21 Or.App. 265, 268–69, 534 P.2d 1160 (1975). In addition to the Howlands' direct testimony that they treated the $580,000 Advances as loans, circumstantial evidence supports that characterization.

  2. Friedlander v. Employment Division

    66 Or. App. 546 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 11 times
    In Friedlander, we found that the claimant had reasonable assurances when the colleges had informed him both orally and in writing of its intent to reemploy him in the fall term contingent on minimum student enrollment.

    65 Or App at 519. See Neshaminy Sch. Dist. v. Com., Unemploy. Comp., 57 Pa Cmwlth 543, 426 A.2d 1245 (1981); Jennings v. Employment Sec. Dept., 34 Wn. App. 592, 663 P.2d 849 (1983); cf. Ashby v. Employment Division, 21 Or. App. 265, 534 P.2d 1160 (1975) (former version of ORS 657.127 that did not contain "reasonable assurance" language required a binding contractual obligation). In determining whether a claimant had a reasonable assurance of reemployment, the totality of the employment relationship, including the claimant's prior history of fall employment, must be examined.

  3. Hayes v. Employment Division

    672 P.2d 352 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 3 times

    26 U.S.C. § 3304, Part A, § 203(b).See Ashby v. Employment Division, 21 Or. App. 265, 268, 534 P.2d 1160 (1975). In Chicago Teachers Union v. Johnson, 639 F.2d 353 (7th Cir 1980), school teachers had been denied benefits under § 203(b).

  4. Kovach v. Employment Division

    582 P.2d 460 (Or. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 2 times

    She was eligible for benefits. McDevitt v. Employment Division, 27 Or. App. 253, 555 P.2d 937 (1976). See also Ashby v. Employment Division, 21 Or. App. 265, 534 P.2d 1160 (1975). Petitioner also challenges the Board's determination that she is ineligible, by virtue of ORS 657.155, from receiving benefits for weeks 38 through 41. She maintains the referee had no jurisdiction to consider her eligibility under ORS 657.155, and that all rulings on that question after the administrator's decision on October 10, 1977, are void.

  5. McDevitt v. Employment Division

    555 P.2d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 2 times

    "* * * * *." Taken alone, this statute will not, however, serve to disqualify an instructor from eligibility for benefits during those periods between academic terms when he is "unemployed" where that instructor is hired on a term-by-term basis by an educational institution having no enforceable duty to rehire him/her from one term to the next and the instructor has no enforceable obligation to return at the end of any given term, even where the instructor has an "expectation" that a new offer will be made at the beginning of the new term. Ashby v. Employment Division, 21 Or. App. 265, 534 P.2d 1160 (1975). In August of 1975 petitioner's full-time employment with the University of Portland came to an end; his contract with PCC covering the summer term also expired that same month. Petitioner thereafter filed his claim for unemployment compensation and was informed that he would be required to actively seek, and to be available for, full-time employment as a condition to the receipt of aid. Petitioner had previously been offered a contract to teach a single class, consisting of ninety-minute sessions on Tuesday and Thursday mornings, at PCC during the Fall term to begin on September 30, 1975. Having communicated with the Employment Division prior to responding to that offer, petitioner informed PCC that pursuant to instructions, he would be seeking full-time employment, and that if the opportunity to work full-time presented itself he would in all probability be unable to fulfill his duties under the proposed contract.