Legal Opinion
Hamel v. Johnson
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided April 25, 2001No. 97-05-28838M; CA A100349PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*450DEITS, C. J.
Defendant, Superintendent of Snake River Correctional Institution, petitions for reconsideration of our opinion in Hamel v. Johnson, 169 Or App 216, 9 P3d 719 (2000). Defendant asserts that we erroneously framed the issue as whether “plaintiff satisfied his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the order * * * postponing his May 27,1997, release date was not supported by substantial evidence[.]” Id. at 221. Defendant argues that “substantial evidence” is not the proper standard by which the trial court was required to evaluate plaintiffs claim. For the reasons…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Anderson v. AlexanderOregon Supreme Court · 1951
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Utsey v. Coos CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
- Christenson v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
- Colby v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- Davis v. Board of ParoleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- Alexander v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.