Atkinson v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
Oregon Supreme Court
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
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Western Helicopter Services, Inc. v. Rogerson Aircraft Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
- Matter of Marriage of DentonOregon Supreme Court · 1998
- Norden v. STATE, WATER RESOURCES DEPT.Oregon Supreme Court · 2000
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. AlvaradoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
- State v. SilsbyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
- Blacknall v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionOregon Supreme Court · 2010
- Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. BrewerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.