holding that even a preexisting relationship between arbitrator and one attorney, post-arbitration communication between arbitrator and same attorney, and alleged factual errors in the arbitral award did not constitute a showing of partiality
Summary of this case from Russell v. KerleySeptember 18, 1984.
holding that even a preexisting relationship between arbitrator and one attorney, post-arbitration communication between arbitrator and same attorney, and alleged factual errors in the arbitral award did not constitute a showing of partiality
Summary of this case from Russell v. Kerleydiscussing the general rule that, "[b]ecause beds and shores of bodies of water are subject to movement, * * * when such changes are gradual, the boundary will follow the water rather than remain where it was on the ground at the time of the original conveyance"
Summary of this case from State v. NorrisFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Sep 18, 1984
52 Or App at 995. See also State v. Lippert, 53 Or. App. 358, 632 P.2d 28, rev den 291 Or. 893 (1981); Norris…
Westrope v. Employment Dept" Claimant asserts that our holdings in J.R. Simplot Co. v. Employment Div., 102 Or. App. 523, 795 P.2d 579…