Owens v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Owens v. Thompson

25 P.3d 415, 174 Or. App. 397, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 693

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 23, 2001

Docket96C-14170; A100262

StatusPublished

This text of 25 P.3d 415 (Owens 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

Owens v. Thompson, 25 P.3d 415, 174 Or. App. 397, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 693 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This case comes before the court on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court in the light of its opinion in Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or 180, 998 P2d 661 (2000). We previously dismissed plaintiffs claim as moot on the ground that the 1995 order that he sought to challenge was superseded by a 1997 order. Owens v. Thompson, 159 Or App 33, 976 P2d 574 (1999), remanded 330 Or 360, 6 P3d 1102 (2000). Hamel indicates that claims such as plaintiffs claim are not moot.

In the trial court, the state moved to dismiss solely on the ground that the 1997 order was proper; the state did not assert or attempt to prove that the 1995 order was valid. Because the 1995 order was properly at issue in this case, the trial court erred in granting the state’s motion to dismiss. On remand, the trial court should evaluate the evidence that was before the Board when it made its 1995 decision.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

This case comes before the court on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court in the light of its opinion in Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or 180, 998 P2d 661 (2000). We previously dismissed plaintiffs claim as moot on the ground that the 1995 order that he sought to challenge was superseded by a 1997 order. Owens v. Thompson, 159 Or App 33, 976 P2d 574 (1999), remanded 330 Or 360, 6 P3d 1102 (2000). Hamel indicates that claims such as plaintiffs claim are not moot.

In the trial court, the state moved to dismiss solely on the ground that the 1997 order was proper; the state did not assert or attempt to prove that the 1995 order was valid. Because the 1995 order was properly at issue in this case, the trial court erred in granting the state’s motion to dismiss. On remand, the trial court should evaluate the evidence that was before the Board when it made its 1995 decision.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 P.3d 415, 174 Or. App. 397, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-thompson-orctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack