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

  1. Bedell v. SchiedlerOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Gage v. MaassOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Keenan v. PetersonOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Paddack v. McDonaldOregon Supreme Court · 1983

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bahrenfus v. BachikCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  2. Bird v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  3. Masse v. Department of RevenueOregon Tax Court · 2005
  4. In Re the Marriage of RossCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  5. Feller v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990

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