Legal Opinion

Troxel v. Maass

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 19, 1993No. 92C11006; CA A75777PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRiggs, J.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his writ of habeas corpus. We review for errors of law, ORS 138.220, and affirm.

Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Intensive Management Unit (IMU) of the Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP), because, on the basis of its evaluation of his characteristics and propensities, OSP determined that plaintiff required intensive supervision. Plaintiff challenged 11 conditions of his incarceration in the IMU through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court dismissed the petition sua sponte. The judgment stated:

“Plaintiffs petition for writ of habeas corpus…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hewitt v. HelmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Penrod v. CuppOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Bedell v. SchiedlerOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Kent v. CuppCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1976

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Frady v. MorrowCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  2. Jones v. ArmenakisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  3. Barrett v. BellequeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  4. Gomez v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  5. Barrett v. BellequeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006

2 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