Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rose v. Cupp

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 24, 1975No. 89126 CA 4757Published

1DissentThoenton, J.

As I understand the rationale of the majority opinion, petitioner is being denied relief for two rea*359sons: First, because habeas corpus does not lie, and, second, because after petitioner’s case was heard in the trial court, and while his appeal was pending in this court, the Oregon. civil death statute was repealed, thus affording petitioner a remedy, namely, by filing a new suit for injunctive relief against the threatened illegal removal to North Carolina.

I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion for two reasons.

First, although petitioner’s allegations regarding his removal to Alabama…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Joseph v. LoweryOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Smith v. Clackamas CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Newton v. CuppCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1970
  4. Morgan v. MorganCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
  5. Chochrek v. CuppCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1975

3 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