Heiller v. Maass

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Heiller v. Maass

814 P.2d 1097, 108 Or. App. 468

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 21, 1991

Docket90-C-11842; CA A66914

StatusPublished

This text of 814 P.2d 1097 (Heiller v. Maass) 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

Heiller v. Maass, 814 P.2d 1097, 108 Or. App. 468 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this habeas corpus action, the trial court found that the harm alleged by plaintiff did not state a claim for relief and did not warrant a hearing. Plaintiff appeals the judgment dismissing the writ.

Defendant’s returns do not allege facts that would defeat plaintiffs allegations. They only controvert them. Defendant now concedes that plaintiffs allegations, if true, state a basis for relief, because he alleges severe pain for which defendant has refused treatment and a denial of diagnoses and treatment by a specialist that was recommended by defendant’s own doctors. We accept the concession. Because plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to state a claim for habeas corpus relief, the trial court improperly dismissed the writ. Bedell v. Schiedler, 307 Or 562, 566, 770 P2d 909 (1989); Fox v. Zenon, 106 Or App 37, 806 P2d 166 (1991).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

In this habeas corpus action, the trial court found that the harm alleged by plaintiff did not state a claim for relief and did not warrant a hearing. Plaintiff appeals the judgment dismissing the writ.

Defendant’s returns do not allege facts that would defeat plaintiffs allegations. They only controvert them. Defendant now concedes that plaintiffs allegations, if true, state a basis for relief, because he alleges severe pain for which defendant has refused treatment and a denial of diagnoses and treatment by a specialist that was recommended by defendant’s own doctors. We accept the concession. Because plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to state a claim for habeas corpus relief, the trial court improperly dismissed the writ. Bedell v. Schiedler, 307 Or 562, 566, 770 P2d 909 (1989); Fox v. Zenon, 106 Or App 37, 806 P2d 166 (1991).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

814 P.2d 1097, 108 Or. App. 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heiller-v-maass-orctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack