Home/Court of Appeals of Oregon/Anstett v. Thompson

Anstett v. Thompson

25 P.3d 414, 174 Or. App. 393, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 758
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedMay 23, 2001
Docket97C-12303; A102496
StatusPublished

This text of 25 P.3d 414 (Anstett v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anstett v. Thompson, 25 P.3d 414, 174 Or. App. 393, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 758 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The crimes for which he is incarcerated took place during the time period when the administrative rule discussed in Peek v. Thompson, 160 Or App 260, 980 P2d 178, rev dismissed 329 Or 553 (1999), was in effect. We reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to consider plaintiffs arguments in light of Peek and in light of the standard of review enunciated in Hamel v. Johnson, 173 Or App 448, 25 P3d 314 (2001).

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Peek v. Thompson
980 P.2d 178 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1999)
Hamel v. Johnson
25 P.3d 314 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 P.3d 414, 174 Or. App. 393, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anstett-v-thompson-orctapp-2001.