Pifher v. Lampert

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Pifher v. Lampert

996 P.2d 526, 165 Or. App. 766, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 314

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 1, 2000

Docket99-01-30258M; CA A105400

StatusPublished

This text of 996 P.2d 526 (Pifher v. Lampert) 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

Pifher v. Lampert, 996 P.2d 526, 165 Or. App. 766, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Snake River Correctional Institution, appeals a judgment dismissing a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court rejected plaintiffs argument that the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision erred in extending his parole release date for two years and further assessed attorney fees against him in the amount of $475. Plaintiff appeals both the decision on the merits and the award of attorney fees. We reverse and remand.

On the merits, we conclude that plaintiff stated a claim for relief based on our analysis of the relevant statutes and administrative rules, as set forth in Peek v. Thompson, 160 Or App 260, 264-65, 980 P2d 178, rev dismissed 329 Or 553 (1999). Because we reverse on the merits, the attorney fee award also must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to consider plaintiffs claim under the version of the administrative rule in effect at the time of his crimes.

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

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Snake River Correctional Institution, appeals a judgment dismissing a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court rejected plaintiffs argument that the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision erred in extending his parole release date for two years and further assessed attorney fees against him in the amount of $475. Plaintiff appeals both the decision on the merits and the award of attorney fees. We reverse and remand.

On the merits, we conclude that plaintiff stated a claim for relief based on our analysis of the relevant statutes and administrative rules, as set forth in Peek v. Thompson, 160 Or App 260, 264-65, 980 P2d 178, rev dismissed 329 Or 553 (1999). Because we reverse on the merits, the attorney fee award also must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to consider plaintiffs claim under the version of the administrative rule in effect at the time of his crimes.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

996 P.2d 526, 165 Or. App. 766, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pifher-v-lampert-orctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack