Bahrenfus v. Bachik

4 Citing cases

  1. Colby v. Thompson

    183 Or. App. 311 (Or. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 12 times
    Finding that the Oregon legislature, in codifying ORS ยง 144.226, did not intend to limit the number of psychological evaluations that the Board could order because the statute used the singular "a" in reference to a psychological examination

    As noted, defendant argues that where, as here, an inmate initially was imprisoned under a lawful judgment, only a violation of the inmate's constitutional rights will support a habeas corpus claim asserting that any continued imprisonment is unlawful. Defendant relies on Bahrenfus v. Bachik, 106 Or. App. 46, 806 P.2d 170, rev den 311 Or. 643 (1991). In Bahrenfus, the plaintiffs alleged that, although they were within the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board, they were deprived of "the right to treatment under Oregon statutes and administrative rules."

  2. Cook v. Zenon

    107 Or. App. 26 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 1 times

    Immediate judicial scrutiny is not required. See Bahrenfus v. Bachik, 106 Or. App. 46, 806 P.2d 170 (1991). Affirmed.

  3. McClaflin v. Wright

    107 Or. App. 688 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 3 times

    Accordingly, immediate judicial scrutiny is not required. Jones v. Maass, 106 Or. App. 42, 806 P.2d 168, rev den 311 Or. 426 (1991); see also Bahrenfus v. Bachik, 106 Or. App. 46, 806 P.2d 170 (1991). Accordingly, the court did not err when it dismissed the writ and gave judgment for defendant.

  4. Jones v. Maass

    806 P.2d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 7 times

    Here, on the other hand, plaintiff's alcoholism and mental illness, as he has alleged the facts, do not create a risk to him of serious and immediate harm. Immediate judicial scrutiny is not required. See also Bahrenfus v. Bachik, 106 Or. App. 46, 806 P.2d 170 (1991). Accordingly, the court did not err when it dismissed the writ and gave judgment for defendant.