Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1971–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Graves v. Adult & Family Services Divisiongreen2 sentences2011Gagnon, 411 US at 790 (stating that “the presence and participation of counsel will probably be both undesireable and constitutionally unnecessary in most revocation hearings”); see also Graves v. AFSD, 76 Or App 215, 222-23 , 708 P2d 1180 (1985), rev den, 300 Or 605 (1986) (referring to “the presumption against the right to appointed counsel”). 2011Gagnon, 411 US at 790 (stating that “the presence and participation of counsel will probably be both undesireable and constitutionally unnecessary in most revocation hearings”); see also Graves v. AFSD, 76 Or App 215, 222-23 , 708 P2d 1180 (1985), rev den, 300 Or 605 (1986) (referring to “the presumption against the right to appointed counsel”). | 2 | 2 |
Gagnon v. Scarpellired2 sentences1982The motion asserted that denial of appointed counsel would violate petitioner’s federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 US 778 , 93 S Ct 1756 , 36 L Ed 2d 656 (1973), which petitioner claims mandates appointment of counsel in juvenile parole revocation proceedings. 4 On November 24, 1980, the federal court denied a preliminary injunction but reserved the right to reconsider its ruling in light of Gagnon after the parole revocation hearing. 1982The motion asserted that denial of appointed counsel would violate petitioner’s federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 US 778 , 93 S Ct 1756 , 36 L Ed 2d 656 (1973), which petitioner claims mandates appointment of counsel in juvenile parole revocation proceedings. 4 On November 24, 1980, the federal court denied a preliminary injunction but reserved the right to reconsider its ruling in light of Gagnon after the parole revocation hearing. | 1 | 3 |
Green v. Baldwingreen2 sentences2022See Green v. Baldwin, 204 Or App 351 , 129 P3d 734 (2006) (involving the board’s 1985 rules); Dunmire v. Board of Parole, 262 Or App 593 , 325 P3d 832 (2014) (involving an offense committed in 1986, after the board had amended former OAR 255-90-015 (1982) and deleted subsection (1) providing for a right to a revocation hearing and violation finding). 2022See Green v. Baldwin, 204 Or App 351 , 129 P3d 734 (2006) (involving the board’s 1985 rules); Dunmire v. Board of Parole, 262 Or App 593 , 325 P3d 832 (2014) (involving an offense committed in 1986, after the board had amended former OAR 255-90-015 (1982) and deleted subsection (1) providing for a right to a revocation hearing and violation finding). | 1 | 1 |
Gebhart v. Gladdengreen2 sentences1971See, e.g., Gebhart v. Gladden, [ 243 Or. 145 , 412 P.2d 29 ] supra. It would be somewhat surprising to hold now for the first time that a wealthy person brought before the court for revocation of probation could not have the assistance of retained counsel to dispute the alleged grounds for revocation. 1971See, e.g., Gebhart v. Gladden, [ 243 Or. 145 , 412 P.2d 29 ] supra. It would be somewhat surprising to hold now for the first time that a wealthy person brought before the court for revocation of probation could not have the assistance of retained counsel to dispute the alleged grounds for revocation. | 1 | 1 |
Whalen v. Gladdengreen1 sentence1971See, e.g., Gebhart v. Gladden, supra. It would be somewhat surprising to hold now for the first time that a wealthy person brought before the court for revocation of probation could not have the assistance of retained counsel to dispute the alleged grounds for revocation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Haskins v. Palmateer
green
2 sentences2022Atkinson v. Board of Parole, A171896. 6 Cf. Haskins v. Palmateer, 186 Or App 159, 166-68 , 63 P3d 31 , rev den, 335 Or 510 (2003) (holding, in habeas corpus case involving same board rules, that even if board “may have failed to follow its own procedural rules in petitioner’s case[,] * * * [n]othing in the applicable rules or statutes affirmatively entitled petitioner to discharge from parole merely because of such a failure on the part of the board”). 682 Atkinson v. Board of Parole required a parole revocation hearing and a determination that petitioner violated parole. 2022Atkinson v. Board of Parole, A171896. 6 Cf. Haskins v. Palmateer, 186 Or App 159, 166-68 , 63 P3d 31 , rev den, 335 Or 510 (2003) (holding, in habeas corpus case involving same board rules, that even if board “may have failed to follow its own procedural rules in petitioner’s case[,] * * * [n]othing in the applicable rules or statutes affirmatively entitled petitioner to discharge from parole merely because of such a failure on the part of the board”). 682 Atkinson v. Board of Parole required a parole revocation hearing and a determination that petitioner violated parole. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Dunmire v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
green
2 sentences2022See Green v. Baldwin, 204 Or App 351 , 129 P3d 734 (2006) (involving the board’s 1985 rules); Dunmire v. Board of Parole, 262 Or App 593 , 325 P3d 832 (2014) (involving an offense committed in 1986, after the board had amended former OAR 255-90-015 (1982) and deleted subsection (1) providing for a right to a revocation hearing and violation finding). 2022See Green v. Baldwin, 204 Or App 351 , 129 P3d 734 (2006) (involving the board’s 1985 rules); Dunmire v. Board of Parole, 262 Or App 593 , 325 P3d 832 (2014) (involving an offense committed in 1986, after the board had amended former OAR 255-90-015 (1982) and deleted subsection (1) providing for a right to a revocation hearing and violation finding). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2016State v. Gonzalez, 212 Or App 1, 5 , 157 P3d 266 (2007) (Sixth Amendment does not apply because a parole revocation hearing is not a criminal proceeding). 2016State v. Gonzalez, 212 Or App 1, 5 , 157 P3d 266 (2007) (Sixth Amendment does not apply because a parole revocation hearing is not a criminal proceeding). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Randall
green
2 sentences2004In State v. Randall, 27 Or App 869 , 557 P2d 1386 (1976), rev den, 278 Or 553 (1977), we held that the state’s use of the testimony of a defendant who had previously testified at a parole revocation hearing without receiving Miranda warnings did not violate the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2004In State v. Randall, 27 Or App 869 , 557 P2d 1386 (1976), rev den, 278 Or 553 (1977), we held that the state’s use of the testimony of a defendant who had previously testified at a parole revocation hearing without receiving Miranda warnings did not violate the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.
green
2 sentences1982The United States Supreme Court had a similar task in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 US 18 , 101 S Ct 2153 , 68 L Ed 2d 640 (1981), where it applied Gagnon to termination of parental rights proceedings on an after-the-fact analysis of the record. 1982The United States Supreme Court had a similar task in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 US 18 , 101 S Ct 2153 , 68 L Ed 2d 640 (1981), where it applied Gagnon to termination of parental rights proceedings on an after-the-fact analysis of the record. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence1976His presence would insure that statements made in the government-established atmosphere are not the product of compulsion.” 384 US at 466 The presence of counsel at the parole revocation hearing was adequate protection of defendant’s constitutional rights. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Perry v. Williard
neutral
2 sentences1971In Perry v. Williard, 247 Or 145 , 427 P2d 1020 (1967), though a case involving right to counsel at a probation rather than a parole revocation hearing, the court said: “Becent decisions in our own court as well as in the United States Supreme Court have been widening and deepening our commitment to individual liberty and to equality before the law. 1971In Perry v. Williard, 247 Or 145 , 427 P2d 1020 (1967), though a case involving right to counsel at a probation rather than a parole revocation hearing, the court said: “Becent decisions in our own court as well as in the United States Supreme Court have been widening and deepening our commitment to individual liberty and to equality before the law. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.