Harris v. Cupp

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Harris v. Cupp

581 P.2d 954, 35 Or. App. 377, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2831

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 1, 1978

DocketNo. 103372, CA 10287

StatusPublished

This text of 581 P.2d 954 (Harris v. Cupp) 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

Harris v. Cupp, 581 P.2d 954, 35 Or. App. 377, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2831 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWAB, C. J.

In this case petitioner, an inmate of the Oregon State Penitentiary, sought relief by way of habeas corpus proceedings alleging that inadequate medical treatment was being furnished him by the defendant, Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary. The trial court heard the matter and ruled against petitioner on the merits. On appeal petitioner alleges two procedural errors and one substantive error. Assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner’s contention was cognizable in habeas corpus, see Penrod v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 581 P2d 934 (1978), it is sufficient to note that we find no procedural errors as alleged by petitioner. Insofar as the substantive issue is concerned, the sufficiency of evidence to support the finding of the trial court, suffice it to say that there was sufficient evidence. Johnson v. Cupp, 29 Or App 541, 544, 564 P2d 734, rev den (1977).

Affirmed.

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

SCHWAB, C. J.

In this case petitioner, an inmate of the Oregon State Penitentiary, sought relief by way of habeas corpus proceedings alleging that inadequate medical treatment was being furnished him by the defendant, Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary. The trial court heard the matter and ruled against petitioner on the merits. On appeal petitioner alleges two procedural errors and one substantive error. Assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner’s contention was cognizable in habeas corpus, see Penrod v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 581 P2d 934 (1978), it is sufficient to note that we find no procedural errors as alleged by petitioner. Insofar as the substantive issue is concerned, the sufficiency of evidence to support the finding of the trial court, suffice it to say that there was sufficient evidence. Johnson v. Cupp, 29 Or App 541, 544, 564 P2d 734, rev den (1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 P.2d 954, 35 Or. App. 377, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-cupp-orctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack