Smith v. Oregon State Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Smith v. Oregon State Penitentiary

832 P.2d 1270, 113 Or. App. 386, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1122

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 3, 1992

DocketCA A68333

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 832 P.2d 1270 (Smith v. Oregon State Penitentiary) 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

Smith v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 832 P.2d 1270, 113 Or. App. 386, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Respondents issued two directives: one precluded inmates from retaining custody of videotapes of legal proceedings and the other announced priorities for inmate access to the law library. Petitioners challenge the validity of those directives under ORS 183.400, arguing that they have the effect of amending existing administrative rules without complying with the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The first directive concerning inmate access to videotapes has been superseded by OAR 291-139-045, which was adopted in compliance with the APA. Challenge to that directive is, therefore, moot. The second directive is excluded from the definition of a “rule” under ORS 183.310(8)(f), because failure to follow it cannot result in disciplinary action. Accordingly, it is not reviewable under ORS 183.400.

Petition for judicial review dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM

Respondents issued two directives: one precluded inmates from retaining custody of videotapes of legal proceedings and the other announced priorities for inmate access to the law library. Petitioners challenge the validity of those directives under ORS 183.400, arguing that they have the effect of amending existing administrative rules without complying with the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The first directive concerning inmate access to videotapes has been superseded by OAR 291-139-045, which was adopted in compliance with the APA. Challenge to that directive is, therefore, moot. The second directive is excluded from the definition of a “rule” under ORS 183.310(8)(f), because failure to follow it cannot result in disciplinary action. Accordingly, it is not reviewable under ORS 183.400.

Petition for judicial review dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

832 P.2d 1270, 113 Or. App. 386, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-oregon-state-penitentiary-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack