138.660
Summary affirmation of judgment; dismissal of appeal. In reviewing the judgment of the
circuit court in a proceeding pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680, the Court of
Appeals on its own motion or on motion of respondent may summarily affirm,
after submission of the appellant’s brief and without submission of the
respondent’s brief, the judgment on appeal without oral argument if it finds
that no substantial question of law is presented by the appeal. Notwithstanding
ORS 2.570, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals may deny or, if the
petitioner does not oppose the motion, grant a respondent’s motion for summary
affirmation. A dismissal of the appeal under this section shall constitute a
decision upon the merits of the appeal. [1959 c.636 §19; 1963 c.557 §2; 1969
c.198 §73; 1995 c.295 §4]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1961–2023 · leading case:
Austin v. Premo, 380 P.3d 1253 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
Austin v. Premo, 380 P.3d 1253 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “On petitioner’s appeal from the post-conviction court’s judgment denying post-conviction relief on petitioner’s claim of inadequate and ineffective assistance of counsel, respondent Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary (“the state”) has moved under ORS 138.660 to…”
Miotke v. Gladden, 443 P.2d 617 (Or. 1968).
· cites it 2× “337, 361 (1960). The statutory restriction of our review to questions of law does not, of course, prevent this court from examining the record of conviction in a criminal action or the record in a post-conviction proceeding to make certain that constitutionally acceptable…”
Negron v. Baldwin, 846 P.2d 1173 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“Appeal dismissed pursuant to ORS 138.660.”
Morasch v. State, 493 P.2d 1364 (Or. 1972).
“Pursuant to ORS 138.660 ① the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s appeal without a hearing on the authority of Rupp v.”
Bennett v. Maass, 886 P.2d 1043 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “” ORS 138.660. 1 We agree and allow the motion.”
Roa v. Fhuere (D. Or. 2023).
· cites it 4× “The State moved for summary affirmance on the basis that Petitioner had not offered any evidence which could support a finding that he was prejudiced by any deficient performance by counsel, thus the appeal did not present a “substantial question of law” under ORS 138.660.…”
Eubanks v. Gladden, 236 F. Supp. 129 (D. Or. 1964).
“ORS 138.660. . Article VII, § 5. . Article VII, § 5.”
Losey v. Cupp, 479 P.2d 1023 (Or. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 2× “The state moves to dismiss under the provisions of *455 ORS 138.660 ① on the ground that the appeal presents no substantial question of law.”
Maxwell v. Gladden, 358 P.2d 719 (Or. 1961).
“Respondent moves that the appeal he dismissed as permitted by ORS 138.660. That section enables this court to dismiss a post-conviction appeal “without oral argument or submission of briefs if [this court] finds that no substantial question of law is presented by the appeal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.