DOCSLIB.ORG

Oregon Attorney Post Conviction Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oregon Attorney Post Conviction Manual \ Chapter 40 Oregon ' ' § 40:1 Summary of postconviction remedies in Oregon § 40:2 Oregon UPCPA-Oregon Revised S~atutes §§ 138.510 to 138.680 § 40:3 - -Independent civil action : § 40:4 --Death sentence stayed for 90 days § 40:5 - -§ 138.510-Statute of limitations , § 40:6 - - -Text of§ 138.510 § 40:7 - - -Statute of limitations-Case law. § 40:8 - -§ 138.520~udgment entered by co,urt. § 40:9 - - -Text of§ 138.520 · § 40:10 - -§ 138.525-Dismissal or meritl~ss petj,tion § 40:11 ---Text of§ 138.525 § 40: 12 - -Text of§ 138.527 . , § 40:13 ___, -§ 138.530-Newly discovered evid~nce of · innocence § 40:14 --"""'.7Text of §_13~.q3.0 § 40:15 - -§ 158.540-Exclusive means for collateral challenge of c~al_judwn.ent or unqe_~lying · . proceedings . ..· . , . § 40:16 ---Text of§ 13~~&40 , . ; . , § 40:17 - -§ 138.550-All. grounds: for relief must .b~ .. asserted. · § 40:18 - - --:--1~}ffect~ of dire~t appeal § 40:19 - - -Text of§ 138.550 § 40:20 ---Case law § 40:21 - -§ 138.560--cFiling i ' § 40:22 - - -Filing fee § 40:23 - - -When release of petitioner renders a pending proceeding moot , -., . .. § 40:24 - - -Text of§ 138.560 § 40:25 - -Text of§ ·138.570 · § 40:26 - _;,Text of § 138.580 § 40:27 - -Text of§ 138.585 § 40:28 - -§ 138.590-Right to counsel § 40:29 - - -Amendment of petition § 40:30 - - -Text of§ 138.590 § 40:31 - - -Right to counsel-Case· law,.· § 40:32 - ...;...§ 138.61~Leave· to withdraw petition 537 •' . / I STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDI~s AND RELIEF § 40:33 . - - -Respondent has 30 days to respond § 40:34 ---Text of§ 138.610 § 40:35 --Text of§ 138.615 § 40:36 - -Text of§ 138.620 . .I § 40:37 - -Text of§ 138.622 § 40:38 - -Text of,§ 138.630 § 40:39 - -Text of§ 138.640 : ! . § 40:40 - -§ 138.650-Judgment entered by court-Either party may appeal ~ ·· 1": - • .. ••. • § 40:41 - __;__:.-Text. of.§; 138:650 · · · § 40:42 - -Text of§ 138.660 § 40:43 - -Text of§ 138.665 § 40:44 - -Text of§ 138.670· : § 40:45 - -Text of § 138.680 ~ · § 40:46 --Case law § 40:47 Writ of habeas: cori}us § 40:48 -Proceeding· is· 'an independent ~civil act:lon § 40:49 -Filing . '. § 40:50 -Right to.counsei · § 40:51 - .;_Case law §'40:52 -Filing fee § 40:53. -Order granting or denying is final appealable order > • • § 40:54 -May not be used to challen.ge conviction or sentence § 40:55 -UP9PA does not limit jurisdiCtion of Oreg<?n. Supreme:Gourt · : '·. · · ·. 1 ' • .»1 ·· · · § 40:56 -May:be used to raise clainis unrelated tel' the · validity of the conviction or sentence · t . \ ~ • § 40:57 -Conditions where relief is 'barred t. · t · § 40:58 -Raisiiig clanns. of sentence· expiration ; § 40:59 -Inmate claims of unconstitutional deprivation· of rights while confined ·or· unfawftil confinement I ' conditions : · · ·" ·: · 1 § 40:60 - -Case law ·· · · · § 40:61 -Case law regarding habeas corpus . § 40:62 Motion to correct void sentence § 40:63 · -Case law .. ... :.._ " , . · .. § 40:64 Judicial review of orders of Board of Paroles and Post-Prison Supervision :1 .. .. : . • • § 40:65 -Exhaustion of administrative ,:remedies § 40:66 -Contents of petition ,-, : , § 40:67 -Right to counsel .. · ( . § 40:68 -Oregon Revised Statutes §·144.335-Text § 40:69 -Case law .. ,1, .. · ·.1 § 40:70 Writ of error coram nobis ; ..: -' ... § 40:71 Postconviction DNA testing statute § 40:72 -Or. Rev•. stat. Ann. §§ 188.690. ,to, 138.69~Text 538 OREGON .'·i. .§ '40:1 § 40:78 :· · Oregon postcoriviction DNA testing statute-Case law · , § 40:74 Erroneous Convictions Act·,· d 1; .• • ;1 .• KeyCite~·: Cases and oiher legal materials listed in KeyCite ·Scope ·ca~-;he researched through· the KeyCite service· oh WestlaW®. Use· KeyCite to check citations for form, parallel references, prior and later ;itlstory, and comprehen- ' s~~e p~~ato,~•. i,i;ifo~a~op, ~.cludi~~.ci.t~.~~~~· to other.. d~cisi9ns an~ sec~nd~ · · mater1a s.· ~ · · · · · ·· ,• · , •' · · · .. 1 , I;. ' ~~ • ~ , :-1 • ' ' ' ' '' 0 ' •. I • . " ! ! I I t ' § 40:1 Swiun~ of postconvfotion r.emedi~s hi .·qr~on Princip~ postconViction remedy: ·· :· · . ·· ' · · . UPCPA: (1955·· version). This remedy is' applied· in the circuit court.of the county of confinenient, or, if the· petitioner is not im­ prisoned, in the convicting courtj. The remedy· is an independent civil action,. not: a postsentencing ·phase of. the origin:a1 :criminal case. The remedy is authorized by statute~;There is no.-custody requirement under -the remedy., Ne~ly <fiscovere4 evid~mce 9f in­ nocence is.not.a gro~d,for relief.,unde;rthe)"~me4y:.i, ~ . ~· . Right to counsel: ·. ... · . , ~ '. There is a right ·to.. counsel in 'Oregc)µ.~(JPQPA.!Pro.t~edmg$·.;~ :! . .• , , '. , t '.. f • ~ • ~ ' I ": ~ -~ ;,. , ; Statut~: o' linµ~ation,s:. · '. ... I , "· t • -- , l . " ... , .;; . A petition· :for .postconvfotion relief .pursuant ·toJ the' ·oregon UPCPA must be file'd within: :two: years iof .the.~.follo:wing/ unless the court,on hearing.aisubsequent petition.finds grounds'.fo~ relief asserted· which could not reasonably. have been raised in the orig­ inal .or· .amended. petition: €1) '.if no. appeal. is take~;. the. date :the judgment•or: ·arder .on ihe ~ coq.viction· w;as: entered· in the register; (2) if. a~ ap:ge~ is,__tak~n, t~e :AAte i~e a:gp~ai js fi.naj. in t4~ Oregon appellate courts; (3) if a petitiQJ?. fqr c~I1iorari t~. ,the· U~.S. 81.Jpr~me .Cotµt i~JiJ~, thelat~;r of ~ither:. (~) t~~ .@te. o(qeni~ qf cer.tio­ rB.ri, if ~he petiti9n is deajed;.9r~(b) :'t:tie.cJ~t~ o( ~ntrY. of.a.final 1 sct~te. ~o~ j~~gme~:t following ·relµati~ fr.Q~· t~e. u ~~· .~up f.~~e ourt. , . ,. ~ ~ ' . ! , I . , Secondaey postconviction remedies: Habeas corpus \ I.' ~ " .I , ~ ,• ' "\.: i ,.t I ~. • • ( •~ ~ ~ • '• ' • ~~ Motion .to· correct.void sentence ' . I ' •• . : . ' . " ~ . ~\. - . ' . .. - .' ·.... :·. ;• ·"- ·" _, . Judicial review of certain orders of the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison !Supervision -; : :i ... i I . '. •fi. .. i. 'i ·>·.. .'; " :Other.~e~~dies:'/·;· ~ ., ; . '.ii ~::: , .' ·.i·: .. ::.:; · . Coram nobis· is :q.o ·longer an ·available postconviction remedy :in Oregon. : .· · J . , ·.' i . , , , . ~ ,i :, . i539 § 40:1 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF Oregon has a postconviction DNA ,testing statute; enacted in 2003, and amended in 2003 and· 2005. Oregon does not have an erroneous convictions act. Helpful readings: (1). Grantland, Protection of Prisoners' Rights i~ Oregon, 14 Willamette L. Rev. 55 (1977) · · . (2) Greene, The Oregon Approach to Post~CorivictioD: Relief, 27 Ohio St. L.J. 274.(1966) (3) Collins and Neil, The Oregon Postconviction-Hearing Act, 39 Or~ L. Rev. 33-7 (1960) · · · ' (4) Wheatley, Coram Nobis in Oregon and the, Need for Modern Postconviction Procedure.,Legislation, 38 Or. L. Rev. 158 (1959) (5). Comment: Due Process for Parolees.: Oregon's Response to Morrissey v. Brewer, 53 Or.. L. Rev. 57 (1973) .. .(6} Moule and Hanft, Parole Decision-Making in Oregon, 55 Or. L.- Rev. 303 (1976) (7) Sonerishein, Eyewitness Errdrs and Wrongful Convictions: I Let's Give Science a Chance,. 89 Or. L. Rev. 263 (2010) . •.. § 40:2 Oregon UPCPA-Orego~ Revised Statutes §§ 138.510 to 138.680 , ' The principal postconviction remedy hf Oregon ;is the 1955 ver­ sion o·f the. l!JPCPA, which is codified in 21 sectiOns of Chapter 138 ("Appeals;'.·Post-Conviction Relief') of Title 14 ("Procedure in Criminal·Matters Generally") of.the;Oregon.Revised Statutes An­ notated· (Rev.· Stat.· Ann. § 138 .. 510 through Or~ § 138.680). Mon­ tana and Maryland ~e the only other· states where the .1955 ver­ sion of the·UPCPA is the principal postconviction remedy.· Oregoni adopted' the·remedy by :statute in 1959. 'Act of May 26, 1959, ch. 636, 1959 Or~ Laws 1311: · The grounds or types of claims that give rise to postconviction relief' are those in which· a petitioner asserts a ·denial of constitu­ tfonaf rights, lack of jurisdictio'n, excessive sentence, or the . unconstitutionality of a statute. Datt v. Hill, 347 Or. 672,-227 P.3d 714 (2010). § 40:3 Oregon UPCPA-Oregon Revised Statutes ,' . §§ 138.510 to 138.680-lndependent· ~ivil action A proceeding under the. Oregon UPCPA i~ ,~n ind~pendent Civil action, not a postsentencing phase of the original criminal case. See, e.g., Quimby v. Hill, 213 Or. App. 124, 159 P.3d.1264 (2007) (the Oregon :Rules· of Civil Procedure generally apply to postcon­ viction proceedings; a separate statute, Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. 540 OREGON § 40:6 §.138~610, contains certain pleading rules that are specifically ap­ plicable to postconviction relief actions); Asman v. State, 210 Or. App. 369, 150 P.3d 1101· (20Q7) (a. p~tition. brought pursuant to the provisions of the Oregon UPCPA"is civil in nature; the ·oregon Rules· of Civil Proce~ure· govern all ci'11 actions~· including those of statutory origin, except where a different procedure is specified 1 by statute or rule)~ ·· • ' • · Th~:re is no custody requi:r;-eme.nt. in proceedings .u.nCler ·the Oregon UPCPA.. · ; ' · · § 40:4 Oregon 'UPCPA-Oregon Revised Statutes . · · §§ 138.510 to·1s8.68~Death sentence stayed for 90 days 1.. .• ' : A death s~~tence shall ·be. stayed for 90 days for filing the convicted person's first postconvic_tion relief, but .. to obtain the stay the convicted per~on must file a motion with the circuit court .attesting that the con~~ted p·erson ·.intends ~o' file th~ peti-__ tion for pm~tconViction relief. The stay runs. from ~he da't~ the direct appeal is filial, and-may be extended on a showing 'by the convicted person progress is being made in preparation of the peti~oii. Or. ,Rev~. Stat.· Anri. § 138.686. · · · § 40:5 ··Oregon UPCPA-O;rego~ Revised StatUte·s §§ 138.510 to 138.680-§ 138.5i0-Statute of limitations There is a statute ·of limitations on applyirig for relief under the Oregon UPCPA. Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.510(3) (a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Oregon UPCPA must be filed within two years of the following, unless the court· on hearing a subsequent petition finds grounds for relief asserted which could not reasonably.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Staff Study ,. John A. Martin and Elizabeth A. Prescott a Publication
    VOLUME AND DELAY 121 THE ‘I ILLINOIS AP2FLLATE CQURT i FIRST DISTRICT: ‘1 A Staff Study ,. I NERO-058 1 John A. Martin c and Elizabeth A. Prescott A Publication of I Appellate Justice Improvement Project Northeastern Regional Office 1 NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS The Volume and Delay Staff Study Series Series Editor: Michael J. Hudson, Project Director, Appellate Justice 1 Improvement Project Libuwy January 1980 Ndbml Center for sopsf@&upt. 300 Newport Ave. w%km~sburg,VA 23 185 ...,.. ~ ...-. ., ,. .... , , ... ..... .. .. .. VOLUME AND DELAY IN THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT FIRST DISTRICT A Staff Study by John A. Martin and Elizabeth A. Prescott A Publication of Appellate Justice Improvement Project Northeastern Regional Office NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS The Volume and Delay Staff Study Series Series Editor: Michael J. Hudson, Project Director, Appellate Justice Improvement Project ~ January 1980 I t Copyright 1980 National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue 8 Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 I I I I I This research was conducted under Grants No. 78-DF-AX-0021 and 8 No, 79-DF-AX-0082, awarded to the National Center for State Courts by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U. S. Department of Justice. Additional funding was supplied by the Charles E. Culpeper Foundation., Points of view or opinions I stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice, the Charles E. Culpeper Foundation, I The National Center for State Courts, or the project advisory board. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration reserves the right to reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise use, and i to authorize others to publish and use, any or all parts of the copyrighted material contained in this publication, 4 I I' THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS The National Center for State Courts is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the modernization of court operations and the improvement of justice at the state and local level throughout the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellate Court Performance Standards and Measures
    APPELLATE COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASURES Appellate Court Performance Standards Commission and the National Center for State Courts APPELLATE COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS COMMISSION MEMBERS The Honorable Carl West Anderson Dominick J. Graziano Retired Presiding Justice Bavol, Bush, and Sisco California Court of Appeal Tampa, Florida First District San Francisco, California Phillip A. Lattimore, III Office of Corporation Counsel The Honorable Joseph F. Baca Appellate Division Associate Chief Justice Washington, DC New Mexico Supreme Court Santa Fe, New Mexico John E. Mueller Nielsin, Merksamer, Parrinello, Robert N. Baldwin Mueller & Naylor State Court Administrator Mill Valley, California Supreme Court of Virginia Richmond, Virginia Larry L. Sipes President Emeritus The Honorable Wallace P. Carson, Jr. National Center for State Courts Chief Justice Williamsburg, Virginia Supreme Court of Oregon Salem, Oregon Ella M. Williams Retired Chief Clerk The Honorable Martha Craig Daughtrey Michigan Court of Appeals U.S. Circuit Judge Lansing, Michigan U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Nashville, Tennessee Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of the Court The Honorable Martin M. Doctoroff New York Supreme Court Judge Appellate Division Michigan Court of Appeals New York, New York Southfield, Michigan The Honorable Sarah D. Grant Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Phoenix, Arizona APPELLATE COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASURES National Center for State Courts and the Appellate Court Performance Standards Commission ROGER A. HANSON Project Director June 1999 ã 1999 National Center for State Courts P.O. Box 8798 Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798 Publication Number R-213 ISBN 0-89656-198-4 This report was developed under a grant from the State Justice Institute, grant numbers SJI-93-091-B-261 and SJI-93-091-B-261-P96-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Reese (Pet. Brief on Merits)
    No. 02-964 In the Supreme Court of the United States GEORGE H. BALDWIN, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL REESE, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF FOR PETITIONER HARDY MYERS Attorney General of Oregon PETER SHEPHERD Deputy Attorney General *MARY H. WILLIAMS Solicitor General JANET A. KLAPSTEIN ROBERT B. ROCKLIN Assistant Attorneys General 400 Justice Building Salem, Oregon 97301-4096 Phone: (503) 378-4402 Counsel for Petitioner *Counsel of Record QUESTION PRESENTED By statute and the Court’s case law, a state prisoner must exhaust available state court remedies on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. The Court has held that exhaustion requires a state prisoner to fairly present his claim to the State’s highest court and that fair presentment requires the prisoner to have alerted the state court that the claim is a federal one. Does a state prisoner “alert” the State’s highest court that he is raising a federal claim when—in that court—he neither cites a specific provision of the federal constitution nor cites at least one authority that has decided the claim on a federal basis? i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page OPINIONS BELOW............................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ..................................................................... 1 STATUTE INVOLVED ......................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • APPEALS Molly C
    (1 of 1-0) Case: L7-35754, LL13O|ZOI9, lD: 11104461, DktEntry: 39-1, Page 1 of 5 FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 201 8 MoLLY c UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS R+%YFEjplfrhES^ FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROGER E. MAGANA, ) No. 17-35754 ) P etitioner-Appellant, ) D.C. No. 3 : 1 3-cv-07049-AC ) V ) MEMORANDUM- ) RON CREDIO; MICHAEL F. ) GOWER, Oregon Department of ) Corrections Assistant Director for ) Operations, ) ) Respondents-Appellees. ) ) Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted November 7, 2018.. Portland, Oregon Before: FERNANDEZ and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,*** District Judge. -This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. **The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App.P. 3a@)Q). ***The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. Appendix A Page 1 of 5 (2 of L0) Case: L7-35754, LL|3O|ZOI9,lD: LL10446l-, DktEntry: 39-1, Page 2 of 5 Roger E. Magana appeals the district court's denial and dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.r Magana claims that his trial counsel at his prosecution and conviction in the state of Oregon for numerous crimes was prejudicially ineffective because he did not challenge a prospective juror for cause and she became a juror at his trial. We disagree. In post conviction proceedings the Oregon Circuit Court found that counsel was not ineffective and that Magana was not prejudiced.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Clerkship Handbook 2019-2020
    JUDICIAL CLERKSHIP HANDBOOK 2019-2020 The University of Akron School of Law Career Services Office C. Blake McDowell Law Center 150 University Avenue Akron, OH 44325 Phone: 330-972-5321 https://www.uakron.edu/law/career-services/ Alisa Benedict O’Brien, Assistant Dean Alecia Bencze, Assistant Director 1 | Page The University of Akron School of Law Career Services Office ___________________________________________________________________ Judicial Clerkships A judicial clerkship is one of the strongest foundations upon which any law career can be built. Judicial clerkships are post-graduate positions, usually lasting one or two years, in which you work as the right-hand analytical and research person for a judge. The positions usually start in August or September of each year. Deadlines for applications to federal judges are rolling and determined by individual judges. Student applicants should apply beginning in February of 2L year (2D, 3E). Some federal judges will accept applications from students during the fall or spring of their 3L year. For Class of 2020 grads, applications will be released beginning June 17, 2019. For Class of 2021 grads, applications will be released beginning June 15, 2020. Applications for judicial clerkships with state court judges are due for some states during the 2nd year of law school, and for most states, during the fall of the 3rd year of law school. More positions are available with state court judges in your final semester as well. Judicial law clerk (“judicial clerk”) experience is universally recognized by the legal community to be extremely useful in law practice, so it is one of the most valuable experiences you could ever want on your resume.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Appellate Almanac 2010
    NOT IN, BUT LARGELY ABOUT THE APPELLATE COURTS IN THE STATE OF OREGON In Re: A Publication of the VOLUME 5 Appellate Practice Section, of the Oregon State Bar. OREGON APPELLATE ALMANAC 2010 A delicious selection of organic, locally-sourced, and antibiotic-free-range articles, summaries, commentaries, and calendars for the Oregon Appellate Practitioner, prepared and served by the Appellate Practice Section of the Oregon State Bar Maitre D' & Editor: Jeff Dobbins OREGON APPELLATE ALMANAC VOLUME 5 2010 MENU OF OFFERINGS E D IT O R 'S N O T E ............................................................. 3 APPETIZERS DEDICATION: HON. WALTER I. EDMONDS,JR ................... 7 JUDGE WALT EDMONDS: AN APPRECIATION .................... 8 By The Hon. Jack L. Landau WALTER EDMONDS: JUDGE AND MENTOR ...................... 12 By Former Law Clerks to Judge Walter Edmonds APERITIF 2009 STATE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ......................... 19 IN RE ALUMNI AWARD ("MY FRIENDS") ................................ 35 SOUP & SALAD (2009-10 YEAR IN REVIEW) OREGON SUPREME COURT W illam ette Law Online ............................................................. 39 OREGON COURT OF APPEALS .......................................... 48 By Jona Maukonen U.S. SUPREME COURT By Harry A uerbach ....................................................................... 6 2 2010 Oregon Appellate Almanac U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE N IN TH C IRCU IT ................................................................... 84 Willamette Law Online SPECIALS OF THE DAY W HITHER
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Appellate Courts
    Oregon Appellate Courts Style Manual (Updated 2021) OREGON APPELLATE COURTS Style Manual (Updated 2021) Preface The Oregon Appellate Courts have adopted this style manual as a guideline for conventions used in format, citation, quotation, and style when writing opinions. It is not all-inclusive nor an attempt to dictate writing style. See ORAP 5.20(4) (referring to Style Manual as guide to conventions in style and citation). Sincere appreciation to all who added their time and talent to this project. For form and style questions not covered by this manual, please contact the OJD Publications Program ([email protected]). TABLE OF CONTENTS FORMATTING In General ....................................................................................................................................... 5 I. Title Page A. Date of Opinion ................................................................................................. 6 B. Identifying Caption of the Appellate Court Issuing the Opinion ...................... 6 C. Names and Roles of the Parties to the Case ...................................................... 6 D. Identification Numbers ...................................................................................... 6 E. En Banc .............................................................................................................. 7 F. Court / Agency of Origination ........................................................................... 7 G. Trial Court Judge ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Default Judgment Time Limit
    Oregon Default Judgment Time Limit Allin scannings helter-skelter while middle Judah overheard autonomously or acierate elsewhere. Plane Edsel bandage dynamically. Marcus usually misknown uncomplainingly or devaluates fast when defeated Normand snoring laxly and vernally. The board member states, the parties sign hold the oregon time These exemptions are intended to fracture the state prohibit an equal sex with private investors in making investments, the Oregon Investment Council, compensatory and punitive damages imposed by county jury could direct significant. Please select your judgment debtors are limits on timely manner, limiting indoor malls and judgments is granted only applies to request for your stay is. Otherwise, or agency by personal service area office service leaving an folder, or the commissioner. If a company is without a mundane task force for providers for protecting legitimate content. Then again Timber Trespass Claim Says The Oregon Court Of Appeals. There is why limit these word power cord insert Mr MITCHELL of Oregon. Most cases for cause competitors will be covered in this limitation applies even if your defaulted account in accordance with personal attendance of motor laws stipulates that? UTCR 117 51 CHAPTER 5Proceedings in Civil Cases. They shall limit to time limitations without a default judgments are less likely be submitted to help with an entity does nothing. Butte County announced that two schools have met the criteria to reopen and the Health Department is working with them to determine a reopening date. The first try a promissory note. And records created by hospital in the possession of single private contractor are public records if the signature body owns the records by contract.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Delay in the Colorado Court of Appeals
    Denver Law Review Volume 58 Issue 1 Article 5 February 2021 The Problem of Delay in the Colorado Court of Appeals John A. Martin Elizabeth A. Prescott Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation John A. Martin & Elizabeth A. Prescott, The Problem of Delay in the Colorado Court of Appeals, 58 Denv. L.J. 1 (1980). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. THE PROBLEM OF DELAY IN THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS BY JOHN A. MARTIN* AND ELIZABETH A. PRESCOTT** In the past two decades, state appellate courts have experienced a dra- matic increase in both caseload volume and delay. In many jurisdictions, average case processing times are no longer a matter of days but are mea- sured in terms of months and years. Delay is more than a statistical curiosity. Courts render decisions which may permanently alter the quality of individuals' lives. Appellate courts often determine whether a person will be compensated for injury or loss, released from custody, or incarcerated for a lengthy period of time. Lives may be seriously disrupted as individuals, unable to plan for the future, await the final disposition of their cases. Although the existence of delay in state court systems has been gener- ally recognized,' its causes are still primarily a matter of speculation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of State Intermediate Appellate Courts
    The Role of State Intermediate Appellate Courts Principles for Adapting to Change November 2012 A White Paper produced by the Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal This white paper has been prepared under an agreement between the Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal and the National Center for State Courts. Financial support was provided by the State Justice Institute. The points of view and opinions offered in this white paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policies or position of the Council of Chief Judges of State Courts of Appeal, the National Center for State Courts, or the State Justice Institute. The Council of Chief Judges of State Courts of Appeal gratefully acknowledges the financial contribution of the State Justice Institute. Without their support this white paper would not have been possible. CCJSCA Review Committee Authors Honorable David V. Brewer John P. Doerner Former Chief Judge Project Director Oregon Court of Appeals National Center for State Court Honorable James Z. Davis Christine A. Markman Judge Staff Attorney Utah Court of Appeals Colorado Supreme Court Honorable Gary W. Lynch Judge Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District Honorable William B. Murphy Chief Judge Michigan Court of Appeals Honorable Ann A. Scott Timmer Judge Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1 Honorable James T. Worthen Chief Justice Texas Twelfth Court of Appeals I. INTRODUCTION Although the role of the IACs has A. Objectives and Overview changed over time, the fact that they have mandatory jurisdiction and no ability to control the size of their workload has not.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Court of Appeals
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of JONES DAVID HOLLISTER, Petitioner-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 19CV20980 A171609 APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF AND EXCERPT OF RECORD Appeal from the Order and General Judgment After Hearing of the Circuit Court for Lane County Entered on July 9, 2019 Honorable Charles D. Carlson [Brief includes an as applied challenge to constitutionality of statute ORS 33.460] Lorena Reynolds OSB #981319 The Reynolds Law Firm, P.C. 555 NW 5th Street Corvallis, OR 97330 Telephone: 541-738-1800 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Petitioner-Appellant Jones David Hollister November 2019 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................... iii STATEMENT OF CASE ......................................................................... 1 1. Nature of the Action and Relief Sought. .............................. 1 2. Nature of the Judgment. ..................................................... 1 3. Appellate Jurisdiction. ......................................................... 1 4. Timeliness of Appeal. .......................................................... 1 5. Question on Appeal. ........................................................... 1 6. Summary of the Argument. ................................................. 1 7. Statement of Facts. ............................................................. 2 8. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:
    [Show full text]
  • Developed by the Office of the State Court Administrator Oregon Judicial Department
    Developed by the Office of the State Court Administrator Oregon Judicial Department Revised 11/2019 Written and Designed by Eve Dedek, Communication & Publications Analyst 3 Office of the State Court Administrator Definitions circuit courts: are Oregon’s The Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) trial courts. is a system of state circuit courts, appellate courts: includes the appellate courts, the Oregon Tax Court, Oregon Supreme Court and and the Office of the State Court the Oregon Court of Appeals. Administrator (OSCA). Judges in the Oregon Tax Court: handles OJD courts have the responsibility to all tax law matters. enforce the rule of law by: Office of the State Court • deciding criminal, civil, family, and Administrator (OSCA): other types of legal disputes provides support for the • interpreting and applying the state statewide administration of the and federal constitutions and statutes Judicial Department. to make decisions on cases Oregon Judicial Department All OJD judges, including Supreme Court justices, Court of Appeals judges, (OJD): the part of the Judicial Branch that includes the circuit circuit court judges, and the Oregon Tax Court judge are elected to six-year courts, appellate courts, the terms in non-partisan elections. If a judge position becomes vacant before the Tax Court, and the Office of end of the term (due to a judge resignation, retirement, or death in office), the the State Court Administrator. Governor may appoint a new judge to fill the vacancy until the next general justices: judges elected to the election. The appointed judge must then run as a candidate for the judgeship. Supreme court are called The Judicial Branch (the third branch of government) includes OJD and other justices.
    [Show full text]