Case law

Williford v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

137 Or. App. 254 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 11, 1995

Petitioner argues that the Board erred in imposing active supervision until the end of his indeterminate sentence. We agree. Fernandez v. Board of Parole, 137 Or App 247 , 904 P2d 1071 (1995). … Petitioner also argues that the Board erred in applying community notification statutes to him. We review for violation of a constitutional or statutory provision. ORS 183.482(8)(b); Calderon-Pacheco v.

Hibbard v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

144 Or. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 9, 1996

In Eggsman v. Board of Parole, 60 Or App 381, 385-86 , 653 P2d 1277 (1982), we held that, under the general statutory grant of authority to parole, the Board is authorized to advance the prison release date. … In Gress v. Board of Parole, 143 Or App 7 , 924 P2d 329 (1996), which involves virtually identical arguments, we rejected that premise.

Gordon v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

266 Or. App. 405 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 22, 2014

Board of Parole, 343 Or 618 , 175 P3d 461 (2007) (Gordon I); Gordon v. … Gordon v. Board of Parole, 239 Or App 603 , 245 P3d 671 (2010).

Sledge v. Oregon Public Employes Retirement Board

112 Or. App. 335 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 22, 1992

Appellant appeals from a summary judgment in this circuit court review of an order of the Public Employes Retirement Board that determined his retirement benefits. We affirm. No facts are in dispute. … account in the Variable Annuity Account * * * and whose effective date of retirement is August 21, 1981,[ 2 ] or later, is otherwise entitled under ORS 237.001 to 237.315 shall be subject to the following adjustment: “(a) The board

Roberts v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

221 Or. App. 278 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 23, 2008

In Brumnett v. … In Weems v. Board of Parole, 221 Or App 70 , 190 P3d 381 (2008) we rejected the same argument that petitioner raises here.

Schuch v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

139 Or. App. 327 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 28, 1996

The Board’s determination that petitioner is a predatory sex offender was not outside the range of the discretion delegated to it by law. ORS 183.482(8); Evensizer v. Board of Parole, 301 Or 403 , 723 P2d 318 (1986). … In Williford v. Board of Parole, 137 *332 Or App 254, 904 P2d 1074 (1995), we concluded that it does not. Petitioner does not articulate any other reasons why such an act implicates his liberty interests.

Miller v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

261 Or. App. 795 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Mar 26, 2014

Accordingly, we do not address whether the board could — or did — appropriately adjust petitioner’s matrix calculation at the 2011 hearing. 3 Accord Rivas v. … There, we had dismissed as moot a prisoner’s habeas corpus challenge to a January 1997 board order that deferred his parole-release date under ORS 144.125(3). Hamel v.

Melvin v. State Board of Higher Education

17 Or. App. 216 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Apr 15, 1974

Petitioner’s contentions have been decided adversely to her in Starns v. Malkerson, 326 F Supp 234 (D Minn 1970), which the United States Supreme Court affirmed without opinion at 401 US 985 (1971). See also, Vlandis v. … Kline, 412 US 441 , 93 S Ct 2230 , 37 L Ed 2d 63, n 9 (1973), citing Starns with approval, and n 12 and accompanying text in Memorial Hospital et al v.

Allred v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

124 Or. App. 278 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 3, 1993

. *281 We considered and rejected the same argument in Teague v. Board of Parole, 105 Or App 1 , 803 P2d 279 (1990), rev den 311 Or 187 (1991). … Petitioner also argues that the Board erred in not considering his efforts at voluntary restitution as a mitigating factor. The Board did initially refuse to consider that as a mitigating factor.

Wyatt v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

230 Or. App. 581 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 9, 2009

person is adversely affected or aggrieved by a final order of the board; and “(b) The person has exhausted administrative review as provided by board rule.” … Generally speaking, a person is adversely affected or aggrieved by a final order of the board if he or she did not obtain the relief sought on administrative review. Richards v.

Oregon State Denturist Ass'n v. Board of Dentistry

172 Or. App. 693 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 28, 2001

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, 322 Or 406, 416-17 , 908 P2d 300 (1995), on recons 325 Or 46 , 932 P2d 1141 (1997); PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 , 859 P2d 1143 (1993). … Because those rules are not “enforceable by” the Board, the Board could not issue any declaration as to their applicability. See Gaynor v.

Norris v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

152 Or. App. 57 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 7, 1998

Severy v. Board, of Parole, 318 Or 172, 179 , 864 P2d 368 (1993). … Norris v.

Larsen v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

191 Or. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 28, 2004

Quintero v. Board of Parole, 329 Or 319, 324-25 , 986 P2d 575 (1999) (list of orders in ORS 144.335(3) is illustrative, not exclusive). … In Severy v.

Strawn v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

217 Or. App. 542 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 30, 2008

Gordon v. … The board’s May 25, 2005, order is consistent with that requirement. See, e.g., Haskins v.

Boise Cascade Corp. v. State Board of Forestry

164 Or. App. 114 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 10, 1999

On appeal, we reversed, Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 131 Or App 538 , 886 P2d 1033 (1994), and the Supreme Court allowed review. … Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 325 Or 185 , 935 P2d 411 (1997). 2 On remand, Boise dropped its claim under the Oregon Constitution and proceeded only on its federal constitutional claim.

Eli v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

187 Or. App. 454 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 1, 2003

“[ORS 144.335(1)] means: An inmate must use any process of administrative review provided by Board rule * * * before seeking judicial review.” Jenkins v. … Garcia v. Board of Parole, 109 Or App 321 , 818 P2d 1296 (1991).

Maney v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

272 Or. App. 116 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 1, 2015

See Stogsdill v. … Board of Pardons v.

Perrin v. Oregon State Board of Higher Edhcation

15 Or. App. 268 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Nov 5, 1973

See *271 also, Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593 , 92 S Ct 2694 , 33 L Ed 2d 570 (1972).” … That hope is not á property right and the frustration of such a hope- does not trigger the right to a hearing under Board of Regents v.

Teague v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

264 Or. App. 464 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 30, 2014

PER CURIAM As allowed by ORS 183.400, petitioner seeks a judicial determination of the validity of OAR 255-094-0006(2)(d), a rule adopted by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board). … We find petitioner’s argument unavailing and conclude that the board did not exceed its authority in adopting OAR 255-094-0006(2)(d). OAR 255-094-0006(2)(d) held valid.

Friends of Yamhill County, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners

237 Or. App. 149 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 1, 2010

See Union Oil Co. v. Board of Co. Comm. of Clack. … State v.