Longhini v. Bishop

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Longhini v. Bishop

874 P.2d 109, 128 Or. App. 48, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 724

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 11, 1994

Docket92-0671 K4; CA A79309

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 874 P.2d 109 (Longhini v. Bishop) 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

Longhini v. Bishop, 874 P.2d 109, 128 Or. App. 48, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 724 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Father appeals from a juvenile court order that is entitled “Order Upon Completion of Preliminary Inquiry.” See former ORS 419.482(2). Although father contends that that order “dismissed” his earlier-filed dependency petition, it did not. On the date that the juvenile court entered the present order, father’s petition was on appeal; that appeal was subsequently dismissed and the trial court has not yet ruled on the petition. The interlocutory order before us is not appealable. See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Hurley, 65 Or App 805, 672 P2d 72 (1983); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. East, 38 Or App 59, 61-65, 589 P2d 744, rev den 286 Or 1 (1979); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Nagle, 36 Or App 237, 240, 584 P2d 338 (1978).

Father also assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for the appointment of an attorney to represent him in the dependency petition proceeding. That denial was not an appealable event. See ORS 419A.200(1).

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM

Father appeals from a juvenile court order that is entitled “Order Upon Completion of Preliminary Inquiry.” See former ORS 419.482(2). Although father contends that that order “dismissed” his earlier-filed dependency petition, it did not. On the date that the juvenile court entered the present order, father’s petition was on appeal; that appeal was subsequently dismissed and the trial court has not yet ruled on the petition. The interlocutory order before us is not appealable. See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Hurley, 65 Or App 805, 672 P2d 72 (1983); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. East, 38 Or App 59, 61-65, 589 P2d 744, rev den 286 Or 1 (1979); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Nagle, 36 Or App 237, 240, 584 P2d 338 (1978).

Father also assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for the appointment of an attorney to represent him in the dependency petition proceeding. That denial was not an appealable event. See ORS 419A.200(1).

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 P.2d 109, 128 Or. App. 48, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longhini-v-bishop-orctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack