Legal Opinion · Dissent

Miller v. Baldwin

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 12, 2001No. CV97-0197; A112032Published

1DissentArmstrong, J.

Oregon statutes provide for the appointment of counsel for indigent litigants in a variety of proceedings, including post-conviction proceedings. In every case before this one, Oregon courts have held that the statutory right to appointed counsel includes the right to have appointed counsel provide adequate representation. Furthermore, in every case before this one in which the legislature failed to provide a specific procedure to vindicate that right, Oregon courts have held that the remedy for inadequate representation by appointed counsel is to permit the litigants to challenge the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. GeistOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Shipman v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Church v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Far West Landscaping, Inc. v. Pacific Cascade Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Junction City Water Control District v. ElliottCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983

7 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