Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State Ex Rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 1997No. SC S42938Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDurham, J.

I agree with the majority that, in this case, mandamus is an appropriate procedural mechanism for obtaining judicial review of relator’s (and, necessarily, the state’s) claims of error regarding the sentencing of Vanzant. Relator has no plainly available remedy in the ordinary course of law but not for the reason relied on by the majority. In response to the parties’ arguments on the merits, the majority refuses to address Vanzant’s claim under the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, section 4, of the United States Constitution, asserting that that claim is “not justiciable.” 324 Or at 618. For…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. New York v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Davis v. WakeleeSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  4. Mountain Timber Company v. State of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  5. Minor v. HappersettSupreme Court of the United States · 1875

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API