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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.395 (2026)

Rerelease of persons whose parole has been revoked; rules

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

      144.395 Rerelease of persons whose parole has been revoked; rules. The board shall adopt rules consistent with the criteria in ORS 144.780 relating to the rerelease of persons whose parole has been revoked. [1977 c.372 §7]

 

RELEASE HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Gonzalez v. Washington, 47 P.3d 537 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Gonzalez v. Washington, 47 P.3d 537 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “” The problem in this case is framed by ORS 144.395, which provides: “The board shall adopt rules consistent with the criteria in ORS 144.”
Woolstrum v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 918 P.2d 112 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “ORS 144.395 provides that the *338 “board shall adopt rules consistent with the criteria in ORS 144.”
Himes v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 190 P.3d 466 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 7× “Here, instead of requiring petitioner to serve his entire remaining sentence in prison, the board set a new rerelease date under ORS 144.395 (1977), which authorized the board to adopt rules relating to the rerelease of offenders whose parole has been revoked.”
Newcomb v. Bd. of Parole, 333 Or. App. 660 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “3951 required the board to adopt rules relating the re-release of offenders, like petitioner, whose parole had previously been revoked. However, before the board, peti- tioner primarily argued that the board’s failure to identify the standards governing the personal interview…”
Newcomb (D. Or. 2026). · cites it 3× “With respect to the claim raised in his counseled brief, the Court of Appeals noted that Newcomb had argued before the Board that its “failure to identify the standards governing the personal interview violated his right to due process[,]” not that the Board must engage in…”
Murphy v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 259 P.3d 97 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “He argued that the board was required, and had failed, to adopt rules governing the rerelease of parolees whose paroles have been revoked, and that ORS 144.395 required the adoption of rules establishing “ranges” of duration of incarceration after parole revocation consistent…”
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.