Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.135 (2026)
Bases of parole decisions to be in writing
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
144.135 Bases of parole decisions to be in writing. The board shall state in writing the detailed bases of its decisions under ORS 144.110 to 144.125. [1977 c.372 §9]
Note: See note under 144.110.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 335 P.3d 828 (Or. 2014).
Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 335 P.3d 828 (Or. 2014). “33513) 1 and ORS 144.135, 2 to a final order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the board) that postponed petitioner’s release date from prison.”
Anderson v. Bd. of Parole, 740 P.2d 760 (Or. 1987). “Petitioner seeks review in this court, alleging that the notice of the action of the Board of Parole (Board) to prisoners does not satisfy ORS 144.135. The statute requires the Board to provide written bases to prisoners of its decisions.”
Harris v. Bd. of Parole, 614 P.2d 602 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “125 [7] and ORS 144.135. [8] The parties here agree that one of the main purposes of the 1977 law was to systematize the fixing of release dates early after incarceration and thereby take out of the process a large measure of the uncertainty inherent in the previous way of…”
Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole, 309 P.3d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “He first asserts that the order’s deficiency violates the requirement in ORS 144.135, which requires the board to “state in writing the detailed bases of its decisions” regarding parole release dates.”
Black v. Bd. of Parole, 341 Or. App. 524 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “130 (1995), amended by Or Laws 1997, ch 825, § 2; requiring the board to state in writing the basis of its decision after an exit interview, ORS 144.135 (1995); allowing the board to consider various docu- ments and information, including the prisoner’s parole plan, in…”
Harris v. Bd. of Parole, 593 P.2d 1292 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “125” does not establish that judicial review of an order setting the initial release date was intended.”
Glasser v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 860 P.2d 832 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “Petitioner’s argument regarding ORS 144.135 does not merit discussion. Affirmed.”
Moore v. Oregon State Bd. of Parole, 635 P.2d 3 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “Although we could speculate about why the Board considered petitioner’s repeated sexual crimes to justify enhanced punishment, its reasons have not been made explicit, in contravention of the Board’s own rule.”
Calderon-Pacheco v. State Bd. of Parole, 788 P.2d 1001 (Or. 1990). “The Anderson court was concerned with the degree of specificity required by ORS 144.135, which states: “The board shall state in writing the detailed bases for its decisions.”
Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole (Or. 2014). “335(3), and that it also failed to recite the “detailed bases” for the board’s decision as required by ORS 144.135. The board replied that the order was not subject to the substan- tial reason requirement because the Legislature had eliminated that require- ment for board orders…”
Price v. Bd. of Parole, 723 P.2d 314 (Or. 1986). “5 Amicus curiae argues that the Board violated ORS 144.135 which provides that “[t]he board shall state in writing the detailed basis of its decisions under ORS 144.”
Hemmerich v. Bd. of Parole, 740 P.2d 779 (Or. 1987). “PER CURIAM Petitioner seeks review, alleging that the Board of Parole (Board) failed to satisfy the requirements of ORS 144.135. As in Anderson v. Board of Parole, 303 Or 618 , 740 P2d 760 (1987), the Board fully complied with ORS 144.”
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.