Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.123 (2026)

Who may accompany person to parole hearing; rules

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      144.123 Who may accompany person to parole hearing; rules. When appearing before the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision an adult in custody shall have the right to be accompanied by a person chosen by the adult in custody pursuant to rule promulgated jointly by the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision and the Department of Corrections. [1981 c.644 §1; 1987 c.320 §52; 2019 c.213 §29]

 

      Note: 144.123 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 144 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Smith v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 356 P.3d 158 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 356 P.3d 158 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 11× “Petitioner also argues that the board’s rulemaking is invalid because the board rules were not “promulgated jointly” with the Department of Corrections (the department), as required by ORS 144.123. Petitioner recognizes that the department promulgated corresponding rules…”
Hibbs v. Sedwick CMS (A180289), 340 Or. App. 431 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “In Smith, the petitioner contended that “ORS 144.123 creates a ‘right’ for the inmate to bring any ‘person of the inmate’s choice’ to” hearings of the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.”
Woolstrum v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 918 P.2d 112 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “]” ORS 144.123. That could have included being accompanied by counsel.”
Kendrick v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 934 P.2d 607 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “He argues that the record does not show that he had notice of the possible consequence of imprisonment to his statutory good-time date or that he was informed that he had the right to be accompanied by a person of his choice, as proved by ORS 144.123. After the hearing, the…”
Hibbs v. Sedwick CMS (A180289), 340 Or. App. 431 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “In Smith, the petitioner contended that “ORS 144.123 creates a ‘right’ for the inmate to bring any ‘person of the inmate’s choice’ to” hearings of the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.”
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.