Legal Opinion

Steffans v. Keeney

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 4, 1986No. 85-0638; CA A39195Published

1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.

This is a post-conviction proceeding. ORS 138.510 et seq. Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The issue is whether petitioner was denied the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in the underlying cases.1 Because petitioner is the party opposing defendant’s motion for summary judgment, we examine the record in the light most favorable to him. Seeborg v. General Motors Corporation, 284 Or 695, 699, 588 P2d 1100 (1978).

In 1983, petitioner was on probation in Multnomah County Circuit Court cases C81-09-34213,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Kelly v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Seeborg v. General Motors CorporationOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Krummacher v. GierloffOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  5. State v. MartinOregon Supreme Court · 1978

4 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