Legal Opinion

Lee v. Maass

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 12, 1992No. 88-C-11402; CA A65399PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

In this post-conviction relief case, petitioner argued that his criminal trial was unlawful, because the flag in the courtroom had a fringe on it and was therefore a Maritime flag and he had not consented to be tried in a Maritime jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the petition, and we affirmed on appeal without opinion. Pursuant to ORS 138.500(4) and (5) and ORAP 13.15, petitioner’s counsel now petitions for attorney fees.

Although we follow the form of referring to arguments made by “petitioner,” that, of course, means “counsel, on behalf of petitioner.” This case reflects an abuse of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. BalfourOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State v. LongjawOregon Supreme Court · 1988

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lee v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API