Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Solar v. Oregon State Penitentiary
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided September 9, 1987No. 10-86-303; CA A42485; 8-222F; CA A42033; 07-86-465; CA A42302; 10-86-092; CA A42345; 10-86-226; CA A42408Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partVan Hoomissen, J.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding in Solar v. OSP and Nelson v. OSP. In Solar, I would find that the hearings officer’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, I would affirm the Superintendent’s final order. The informant was an eyewitness. The hearings officer found that he was credible. He passed a polygraph examination, and petitioner did not object to the polygraph evidence. That is sufficient. See Grisel v. OSP, 290 Or 719, 625 P2d 651 (1981); Wiggett v. OSP, 85 Or App 635, 738 P2d 580 (1987); Hartman v. OSP, 50 Or App 419, 623 P2d 681 (1981).
In…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wiggett v. Oregon State PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
- Hartman v. Oregon State PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1981
- Grisel v. Oregon State PenitentiaryOregon Supreme Court · 1981
- Parker v. Oregon State Correctional InstitutionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
- Atkins v. Oregon State PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987