179.360 Powers
and duties of superintendents.
(1) Each superintendent shall:
(a) Have custody
of the residents of the institution under jurisdiction of the superintendent.
(b) Direct the
care, custody and training of the residents unless otherwise directed by law or
by rule.
(c) Adopt
sanitary measures for the health and comfort of the residents.
(d) Promote the
mental, moral and physical welfare and development of the residents.
(e) Enjoy the
other powers and privileges and perform the other duties that are prescribed by
law or by rule or that naturally attach themselves to the position of
superintendent.
(2) The Director
of the Department of Corrections and the Director of the Oregon Health
Authority shall prescribe for their respective institutions:
(a) The duties of
the superintendents where the duties are not prescribed by law.
(b) The
additional duties, beyond those prescribed by law, that each agency director
considers necessary for the good of the public service. [Amended by 1969 c.391 §14;
1969 c.597 §34; 1979 c.683 §4; 1987 c.320 §120; 2001 c.900 §36; 2009 c.59 §3;
2009 c.595 §133; 2013 c.36 §41; 2017 c.223 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Smith v. Dep't of Corr. (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 11× “) Petitioner argues that subsection (2) is in direct contravention of ORS 179.360(l)(f). ORS 179.360(l)(f) is part of a series of statutes pertaining to the superintendents of institutions administered by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and DOC.”
Capps v. Atiyeh, 559 F. Supp. 894 (D. Or. 1983).
· cites it 3× “As with the Annex’s pasteurization operation, I do not believe it necessary to pass on whether these violations of standards — to the extent they are not also violations of state law — require remedial action.”
Curtis v. Oregon State Corr. Inst. (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 7× “The authority to impose punishment upon inmates of the Oregon State Penitentiary and the Oregon State Correctional Institution is derived from the following: ORS 179.360, which provides: “(1) Each superintendent shall: “(a) Have control of the wards of the state at the…”
Curtis v. Or. St. Corr. Inst. Cor. Div., 532 P.2d 798 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 9× “The authority to impose punishment upon inmates of the Oregon State Penitentiary and the Oregon State Correctional Institution is derived from the following: ORS 179.360, which provides: "(1) Each superintendent shall: "(a) Have control of the wards of the state at the…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 179.360(1): 2 cases
Capps v. Atiyeh, 559 F. Supp. 894 (D. Or. 1983).
“As with the Annex’s pasteurization operation, I do not believe it necessary to pass on whether these violations of standards — to the extent they are not also violations of state law — require remedial action.”
Curtis v. Oregon State Corr. Inst. (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
“The authority to impose punishment upon inmates of the Oregon State Penitentiary and the Oregon State Correctional Institution is derived from the following: ORS 179.360, which provides: “(1) Each superintendent shall: “(a) Have control of the wards of the state at the…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 179.360(1)(b): 1 case
Curtis v. Or. St. Corr. Inst. Cor. Div., 532 P.2d 798 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
“The authority to impose punishment upon inmates of the Oregon State Penitentiary and the Oregon State Correctional Institution is derived from the following: ORS 179.360, which provides: "(1) Each superintendent shall: "(a) Have control of the wards of the state at the…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 179.360(1)(e): 1 case
Curtis v. Or. St. Corr. Inst. Cor. Div., 532 P.2d 798 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
“The authority to impose punishment upon inmates of the Oregon State Penitentiary and the Oregon State Correctional Institution is derived from the following: ORS 179.360, which provides: "(1) Each superintendent shall: "(a) Have control of the wards of the state at the…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 179.360(l)(c): 1 case
Capps v. Atiyeh, 559 F. Supp. 894 (D. Or. 1983).
“As with the Annex’s pasteurization operation, I do not believe it necessary to pass on whether these violations of standards — to the extent they are not also violations of state law — require remedial action.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 179.360(l)(f): 1 case
Smith v. Dep't of Corr. (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“) Petitioner argues that subsection (2) is in direct contravention of ORS 179.360(l)(f). ORS 179.360(l)(f) is part of a series of statutes pertaining to the superintendents of institutions administered by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and DOC.”
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.