Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hale v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, ETC.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 17, 1978No. 05-77-099, CA 8799Published

1Concurrence

JOHNSON, J.,

specially concurring.

I agree with the majority that ORS 421.195 and ORS 183.482 contemplate reversal in appropriate circumstances and that this is such an instance. I cannot, however, agree with the majority’s reasoning for reaching its conclusion that "having made the rules, the Corrections Division is bound by them.” The implication is that the Corrections Division should change its rules to avoid reversals in the future. The Corrections Division’s rules prescribe a precise and expeditious timetable for the conduct of disciplinary proceedings, including the time within which the *533…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Penrod v. CuppOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Bekins v. CuppOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Penrod v. CuppCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API