Legal Opinion

Tracy v. Nooth

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 27, 2013No. 07096074P; A140606PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.

Petitioner seeks reconsideration of our opinion in Tracy v. Nooth, 252 Or App 163, 285 P3d 745 (2012), in which we concluded that the post-conviction court erred in denying petitioner’s request for subpoenas in support of his post-conviction case and remanded for further proceedings. We limited the scope of remand to petitioner’s claims related to the subpoenas. Petitioner argues that the scope of remand is too narrow, and he “seeks reconsideration, to ask for leave to raise whatever claims below are permitted by ordinary post-conviction procedure, including amending the petition to raise…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Allen v. PremoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  2. Fisk v. HenarieOregon Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Tracy v. NoothCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  4. Fujitsu Microelectronics, Inc. v. Lam Research Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2001

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Sanchez v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  2. Brenner v. NoothCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  3. Crossley v. MyrickCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  4. Sako v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  5. Siefken v. PremoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API