Legal Opinion
Lane v. Maass
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided April 26, 1990No. CC 88 C 10808; CA A50272; SC S36636PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeterson, C. J.
The issue presented is whether a motion to dismiss pursuant to ORCP 21 A 1 is appropriate in habeas corpus proceedings. The facts, as set forth by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
“In his petition, plaintiff alleged that he was being unlawfully imprisoned and restrained, because he had been forced to provide a urine sample for drug analysis. He explained in his petition that, when he was unable immediately to provide a sample, he was threatened with a loss of privileges. After approximately 100 minutes of effort, plaintiff asked that the sample be obtained by a catheter, but his request…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bedell v. SchiedlerOregon Supreme Court · 1989
- Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1983
- Gage v. MaassOregon Supreme Court · 1988
- Keenan v. PetersonOregon Supreme Court · 1989
- Paddack v. McDonaldOregon Supreme Court · 1983
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bahrenfus v. BachikCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
- Bird v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
- Masse v. Department of RevenueOregon Tax Court · 2005
- In Re the Marriage of RossCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
- Feller v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.