Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wilcox v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 23, 2005No. A124435Published

1DissentArmstrong, J.

Implicit in today’s opinion is the majority’s desire to conserve judicial resources by avoiding the need to address the merits of what it believes to be meritless claims. To do that, it misinterprets the phrase “adversely affected or aggrieved” in ORS 144.335 to raise a jurisdictional bar to petitioner’s claim. The interpretation that it gives that phrase is not one that it would give the phrase in any of the other Oregon statutes in which the phrase appears. Ultimately, if the statutes and rules as written create the potential for the waste of judicial resources, that problem must be…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Robert Lewis Himes v. S. Frank ThompsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  2. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Institutional Animal Care & Use CommitteeOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Teel Irrigation District v. Water Resources DepartmentOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  4. In Re StarrOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Jenkins v. Board of ParoleOregon Supreme Court · 1992

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