Hamel v. Johnson
Court of Appeals of Oregon
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
- Hamel v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 2000
- Meadows v. SchiedlerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- McClintock v. SchiedlerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
- Tigard Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Clackamas CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- Berwick v. Adult & Family Services DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.