Legal Opinion

Atkinson v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 21, 2006No. CA A122599; SC S52476PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCarson, J.

In this case, we must decide what constitutes a “substantial question of law” when the Court of Appeals determines whether to grant a motion for leave to proceed with judicial review of a parole order under ORS 144.335. Petitioner sought judicial review of a decision of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board) and, pursuant to ORS 144.335(6), 1 filed such a motion for leave to proceed. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner leave to proceed and dismissed his petition on its own motion, apparently concluding that petitioner had failed to present a “substantial question of law.”…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Western Helicopter Services, Inc. v. Rogerson Aircraft Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Matter of Marriage of DentonOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Norden v. STATE, WATER RESOURCES DEPT.Oregon Supreme Court · 2000

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. AlvaradoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  2. State v. SilsbyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  3. Blacknall v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  5. State v. BrewerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

9 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