Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fine v. Zenon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 8, 1992No. 91C-10112; CA A70371Published

1DissentButtler, P. J.

Although I agree that petitioner’s petition should not have been dismissed, I do so because I believe that the newly enacted Statute of Limitations, ORS 138.510(2), is unconstitutional for the reasons stated in my dissent in Bartz v. State of Oregon, 110 Or App 614, 619, 825 P2d 657, rev allowed 313 Or 209 (1992), not because ORS 138.510(2) provides the “escape” clause theory adopted by the majority.

From the beginning of litigation concerning the new Statute of Limitations, the state has attempted to soften its harsh effects on convicted persons. To avoid the harshness of its contention that…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Boone v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  2. Morrow v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API