Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Sterling v. Cupp

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1981No. TC 108452, CA 13246, SC 26907, SC 26915Published

1Concurrence

TONGUE, J.,

specially concurring.

I concur in the result reached by the majority insofar as it holds that male prisoners cannot be subjected to searches by female guards involving touching of genital or anal areas except in emergencies. I do not, however, agree with the grounds on which the majority opinion is based, not only because I believe them to be wrong, but also because they are based upon a theory wholly different from the theory on which the case was both tried and appealed to the Court of Appeals.

1. This court cannot properly decide this case on a theory wholly different from the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. QuinnOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Nordling v. JohnstonOregon Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Pelton v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Edwards, Guardian v. HoevetOregon Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Chaney v. Fields Chevrolet Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1971

4 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