ESPERUM v. BOARD OF PAROLE

A28445/S30136; A28463/S30139; A28321/S30138; A28308/S30167; A29149/S30208; A29278/S30149; A28402/S30155; A28338/S30168; A28394/S30137; A28831/S30154; A28306/S30135; A28744/S30166; A28406/S30140; A28656/S30182.

681 P.2d 1128 (1984)

296 Or. 789

Keith D. ESPERUM, Petitioner On Review, v. Oregon BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent On Review, Robert Gholston, Petitioner On Review, v. OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent On Review, Bruce Gress, Petitioner On Review, v. Oregon BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent On Review, Raymond C. Alexander, Petitioner On Review, v. OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent On Review, Jimmie Carl Hall, Petitioner On Review, v. Oregon BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent On Review, Irving S. Wise, Petitioner On Review, v. OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent On Review, John D. Leftridge, Petitioner On Review, v. Oregon BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent On Review, Michael McInroe, Petitioner On Review, v. OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent On Review, Michael St. Martin, Petitioner On Review, v. Oregon BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent On Review, Donald G. Sager, Petitioner On Review, v. OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent On Review, Robbin O. Borders, Petitioner On Review, v. Oregon BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent On Review, Daniel J. McSorley, Petitioner On Review, v. OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent On Review, Tracy Rae Elliott, Petitioner On Review, v. Oregon BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent On Review, Mark K. Knutson, Petitioner On Review, v. Oregon Board of Parole, Respondent On Review,

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.

Decided April 17, 1984.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Ernest E. Estes, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioners on review. Petitioners on review filed petitions pro se.

Scott McAlister, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the response to the petitions were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and James E. Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., Salem.


JONES, Justice.

Petitioners, inmates in the Oregon State Penitentiary, filed petitions with the Court of Appeals for review of orders by the Board of Parole relating to the granting of parole. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals as untimely.

Petitioners then filed with this court petitions for review of the orders of dismissal by the Court of Appeals. We allowed the petitions for review because the question of when the orders by the Board of Parole...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases