Legal Opinion

Roy v. Palmateer

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 2005No. CC 00C20058; CA A116149; CC 01C19972; CA A117045; SC S51941PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBalmer, J.

This case requires us to determine whether plaintiff, an inmate, is entitled to immediate release on habeas corpus because the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board) has determined that he is “likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time.” ORS 163.105(3) (1983). The Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiff that he is entitled to immediate release. We conclude, however, that the Court of Appeals erred in its reading of this court’s prior cases and the applicable statutes. We therefore reverse and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

Plainti…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Norris v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Roy v. PalmateerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Janowski v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Fleming v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  3. Corgain v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  4. Shelby v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  5. Dunn v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007

2 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