State Ex Rel. Dep't of Multnomah Cty. v. Charles, 701 P.2d 1052 (Or. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Multnomah Cty. v. Charles, 701 P.2d 1052 (Or. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we decline to adopt the specific recommendations of the 'guidelines,' but we agree with the general proposition that an expert witness within the meaning of that term must possess special knowledge of social and cultural aspects of indian life.”
38 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State Ex Rel. State Office for Services to Children & Families v. Amador (orctapp, 2001-08-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) State Ex Rel. State Office for Services to Children & Families v. Amador
Or. Ct. App. · 2001 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
we decline to adopt the specific recommendations of the 'guidelines,' but we agree with the general proposition that an expert witness within the meaning of that term must possess special knowledge of social and cultural aspects of indian life.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
IN THE MATTER OF JADE CHARLES, a Child. STATE of Oregon, ex rel. Juvenile Department of Multnomah County, Petitioner On Review,
v.
Jamesyn CHARLES, Respondent On Review, and Sitka Community Association, Intervenor.
TC 80,230 CA A29488 SC S31309.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Jul 2, 1985.
701 P.2d 1052
Per Curiam.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 84%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)

Linda J. DeVries, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner[*1053] on review. With her on the briefs were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, and Karen H. Green, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.

Patrick R. Berg, Lake Oswego, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the briefs was Buckley, Johnson, Carlson, Bolen & Berg, P.C., Lake Oswego.

LeRoy W. Wilder, Portland, argued the cause for intervenor on review. With him on the brief was Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Wilder, Portland.

Gary Forrester, Native American Indian Program, Oregon Legal Services, Portland, filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.

PER CURIAM.

We accepted review in this case to consider the meaning of the term "qualified expert witness" as that term is used in the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(e). In addition to the Court of Appeals' interpretation of that term, its decision rested on an independent ground, the state's failure to show that remedial efforts to prevent the breakup of the family were unsuccessful. The state petitioned for review on one ground only. At oral argument, the state conceded that, regardless of this court's resolution of the issue on which review is sought, we must affirm the Court of Appeals on the issue for which review was not sought. For this reason, we do not consider the issue raised in the petition for review and dismiss this petition as improvidently granted.[1]

Petition dismissed as improvidently granted.

1 Day v. SAIF, 288 Or. 77, 602 P.2d 258 (1979); Fitch v. Public Welfare Div., 279 Or. 297, 567 P.2d 117 (1977).