applying statute and rules in effect at the time of the petitioner's crimes in 1985 and 1986 and holding that, "the rules did not provide for discharge by inaction or by operation of law"
Summary of this case from Miller v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionJuly 29, 2003.
applying statute and rules in effect at the time of the petitioner's crimes in 1985 and 1986 and holding that, "the rules did not provide for discharge by inaction or by operation of law"
Summary of this case from Miller v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervisionapplying statute and rules in effect at the time of the petitioner's crimes in 1985 and 1986; holding that, “as was the case in Haskins, the rules did not provide for discharge by inaction or by operation of law”
Summary of this case from Dunmire v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jul 29, 2003
On February 6, 2007, the court denied the Motion to Proceed and dismissed the petition for judicial review.…
Cleveland v. Board of Parole Post-Prison SupervisionRather, the statute requires that the board must act affirmatively to discharge the parolee from parole by…