Legal Opinion

Peeples v. Lampert

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 1, 2006No. 02-01-1658M A122837 (Control) 03-C21423 A125027PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*20LANDAU, J.

Petitioner appeals a judgment dismissing his second petition for post-conviction relief as a sanction for his refusal to participate in a scheduled deposition. ORCP 46 B, D. He argues that the court failed to make the required findings in support of such a sanction and that, in any event, the court’s choice of dismissal as a sanction was unjustified. We affirm.

Because the post-conviction court’s decision arose, in part, from petitioner’s conduct at earlier stages of the proceedings, we begin with the procedural history of petitioner’s case. In petitioner’s underlying criminal trial,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical CorporationOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Mattiza v. FosterOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Davis v. O'BRIENOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Pamplin v. VictoriaOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  5. SAIF Corp. v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Peeples v. LampertOregon Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Burdette v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  3. Mota v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  4. Peeples v. LampertOregon Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Peeples v. LampertCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API