Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hamel v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 25, 2001No. 97-05-28838M; CA A100349Published

1DissentArmstrong, J.

I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that we applied an improper standard of review in our prior opinion in this case, Hamel v. Johnson, 169 Or App 216, 9 P3d 719 (2000) {Hamel II). In Hamel II, we conducted a review for substantial evidence to determine whether there was legally sufficient evidence to support the Parole Board’s finding under ORS 144.125(3) that plaintiff suffered from a severe emotional disturbance that warranted postponement of his *465release from prison. Defendant seeks reconsideration of our decision, arguing that the review conducted by a habeas corpus court of a Board…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Hamel v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Meadows v. SchiedlerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  3. McClintock v. SchiedlerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  4. Tigard Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Clackamas CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  5. Berwick v. Adult & Family Services DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

5 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