Samson v. Brown

3 Citing cases

  1. Woods v. Hendricks

    328 Or. App. 207 (Or. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times
    Agreeing with Samson and reaching same conclusion regarding ORS 137.700

    Plaintiff appeals, assigning error to the court's decision to grant the motion to dismiss. On appeal, he argues that our decision in Samson v. Brown , 310 Or App 319, 486 P.3d 59 (2021), and a plain reading of the term-reduction statute, ORS 421.121, entitles him to earned time for the entire term of Count 5. Thus, because our task involves interpreting the applicable sentencing statutes, we turn to the familiar framework to do so.

  2. Hebrard v. Nofziger

    90 F.4th 1000 (9th Cir. 2024)   Cited 34 times
    Explaining that the mere “failure to raise” an argument cannot amount to an implied waiver of that argument because “ finding of waiver requires evidence of a party's actions that evince his intentional relinquishment of a known right” (citing Hill v. Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC, 59 F.4th 457, 471-79 (9th Cir. 2023))

    The difference in terminology is immaterial because the parties use the terms synonymously. See Samson v. Brown, 310 Or.App. 319, 486 P.3d 59, 61 (2021). Given the complaint and final disciplinary report use the term "earned-time" credits, we will do so as well.

  3. Samson v. Peters

    3:22-cv-00040-AN (D. Or. Mar. 7, 2024)

    . Defendant Brown appealed the circuit court ruling, but the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling in Samson v. Brown, 310 Or.App. 319 (2021). In relevant part, the court held that "if a person is serving prison time on two sentences simultaneously, one which is subject to ORS 137.635, and one which is not, then the earned time prohibition in ORS 137.635 applies at all times to the sentence that is subject to ORS 137.635, but it never applies to the sentence that is not subject to ORS 137.635."