adopting “some evidence” standard for habeas corpus review of Board decisions made under ORS 144.125(3) (1991)
How later courts described this case
- adopting “some evidence” standard for habeas corpus review of Board decisions made under ORS 144.125(3) (1991)
- a statutory entitlement to parole may, under some circumstances, create a liberty interest cognizable under the Due Process Clause; citing Greenholtz
- “A court’s decision on a matter must have some practical effect on the rights of the parties to the controversy.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BREWER, J.,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the appropriate standard for habeas corpus review of Board of Parole and Post Prison Supervision decisions made under ORS 144.125(3) (1991) is the “some evidence” standard required by the Fourteenth Amendment. I also agree with the majority that the Board’s administrative rule, OAR 255-030-0032, does not require the use of a different standard. Finally, I agree that the Board’s decision in this case does pass muster under the “some evidence” test. I write separately only to emphasize that this court did not, in Meadows v. Schiedler, 143 Or App 213 , 924 P2d 314 (1996), reject review for substantial evidence as the applicable standard of review of such decisions. I agree with Judge Armstrong that Meadows should not be so understood. Nevertheless, because the majority has properly reasoned its way through this problem, I concur.
Haselton, J., joins in this concurrence.