Brown v. Cupp
567 P.2d 619, 30 Or. App. 647, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1644
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. Cupp. Read the opinion of the Court — 31 Or. App. 1237 →
Opinion
In this habeas corpus proceeding, plaintiff, a prisoner in the Oregon State Penitentiary, appeals from the trial court’s finding that he was not mentally ill and therefore was not being denied adequate medical care for his mental illness.
Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the testimony of the prison psychiatrist that the defendant was not mentally ill and did not need psychiatric care is sufficient to support a finding of fact not subject to being disturbed on review. Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485, 443 P2d 621 (1968).1
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brown v. Cupp, 567 P.2d 619, 30 Or. App. 647, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1644 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
567 P.2d 619 (Brown v. Cupp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Penrod v. Cupp
567 P.2d 563 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1977)
Ball v. Gladden
443 P.2d 621 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1968)