1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 97 P.3d
  5. 97 P.3d 1 (2004)
 

AYRES v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON

A121588; A120892; A119796; A120823; and A122454.

97 P.3d 1 (2004)

194 Or. App. 429

James M. AYRES, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. Albert F. Walz, Petitioner, v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, Respondent. Roger M. Walters, Petitioner, v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, Respondent. Abdur Rashid Al-Wadud, Petitioner, v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, Respondent. Richard Brian Bird, Petitioner, v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

April 10, 2003.

September 3, 2003.

April 10, 2003.

September 23, 2003.

Decided August 4, 2004.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Kathleen Cegla, Assistant Attorney General, for motion in A121588 (Ayres).

James M. Ayres, pro se, contra.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Holly A. Vance, Assistant Attorney General, for motion in A120892 (Walz).

Walter J. Ledesma, Deputy Public Defender, contra, and Notice of Intent to Proceed filed August 5, 2003.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Kathleen Cegla, Assistant Attorney General, for motion in A119796 (Walters).

Walter J. Ledesma, Deputy Public Defender, contra, and Notice of Intent to Proceed filed December 2, 2003.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Holly A. Vance, Assistant Attorney General, for motion in A121588 (Al-Wadud).

Walter J. Ledesma, Deputy Public Defender, contra.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Steven R. Powers, Assistant Attorney General, for motion in A121588 (Bird).

Richard B. Bird, pro se, contra.

Before BREWER, Presiding Judge, and LINDER and WOLLHEIM, Judges.

On Respondent's Motions to Dismiss Filed June 16, 2003.

LINDER, J.

Petitioners in these five cases are inmates in various state correctional institutions who seek judicial review of orders of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board). The board has moved to dismiss their petitions for judicial review, arguing that petitioners, who did not timely seek board review of their "Board Action Forms" (BAFs), failed to exhaust their administrative remedies...

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