Penrod v. Cupp

5 Citing cases

  1. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Granis

    680 P.2d 660 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 11 times
    Noting that under Lassiter, "the nature of the parental interest and of the governmental interest are relatively constant and, generally, the only variable for the court to consider in deciding whether to appoint counsel is the extent of the ‘risk that the procedures used will lead to erroneous decisions' "

    Motheir's attorney was not appointed, and she did not represent a child. The Supreme Court stated in Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 284 Or. 417, 587 P.2d 96 (1978): "* * * Even when the appointment of counsel is itself constitutionally required, the court will not relieve counsel from the professional duty to render the required services without compensation if no law provides for public payment of such compensation.

  2. State ex Rel. Scott v. Roper

    688 S.W.2d 757 (Mo. 1985)   Cited 31 times
    Asserting that the monopoly theory contains many conceptual difficulties

    In addition to the so-called historic role of attorneys as officers of the court, some decisions appear to rest upon a vague notion that lawyers have a professional obligation to provide gratuitous service upon court order. See e.g., State v. Ruiz, supra, 602 S.W.2d at 627 (dicta); State v. Keener, 224 Kan. 100, 577 P.2d 1182, 1184-85 (1978) (dicta); Penrod v. Cupp, 284 Or. 417, 587 P.2d 96, 97 (1978). See also State ex rel. Acocella v. Allen, 288 Or. 175, 604 P.2d 391, 394, n. 6 (1979).

  3. Roberts v. Mills

    628 P.2d 714 (Or. 1981)   Cited 4 times

    In the absence of statutory authorization, attorneys in habeas corpus cases are not entitled to compensation. Penrod v. Cupp, 284 Or. 417, 587 P.2d 96 (1978). Cf. United States v. Dillon, 346 F.2d 633 (9th Cir), cert den 382 U.S. 978, 86 S Ct 550, 15 L Ed 2d 469 (1965).

  4. State ex rel. Roby v. Mason

    587 P.2d 94 (Or. 1978)   Cited 2 times
    In State ex rel. Roby v. Mason, 284 Or. 427, 429, 587 P.2d 94 (1978), the Supreme Court concluded that, because “an appeal in an extradition case is a proceeding in a court in connection with a criminal action,” it was a “criminal proceeding” under ORS 131.005(7).

    A petition for a writ of habeas corpus ordinarily is neither of these. See Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 284 Or. 417, 587 P.2d 96 (1978), decided today. 2.

  5. Akridge v. Cupp

    587 P.2d 461 (Or. 1978)

    PER CURIAM. Petitioners in these habeas corpus proceedings, consolidated for appeal and review, now move this court for an order allowing attorney fees and costs incurred in the presentation of their petition for review. Today's decision in Penrod v. Cupp and Brown v. Cupp, 284 Or. 417, 587 P.2d 96 (1978), holds that there is no statutory basis for such an order by this court. The motion is denied.