Oregon Decisions

ORS 144.125(3) provides that the Board of Parole and Post Prison Supervision (board) may postpone a prisoner's scheduled release date if the board finds that the prisoner has a "present severe emotional disturbance such as to constitute a danger to the health or safety of the community." In this case, the board found by a preponderance of the evidence that petitioner had such a condition, and petitioner sought judicial review arguing that the Due Process Clause required the board to apply a higher standard of proof. The Court of Appeals affirmed the board's order without opinion. Stogsdill v. Board of Parole, 204 Or App 779, 132 P3d 62 (2006). Court allowed review and now affirm the Court of Appeals decision.

Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Diverscape, Inc. in a personal injury action. The issue raised on appeal is whether the 1996 Motor Carriers of Property Permit Act imposes a nondelegable duty of care on Diverscape, as a motor carrier of property, making it liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor it hired to transport materials to a job site. Court concluded that Diverscape was a private carrier as defined by the MCPPA, and that the MCPPA does not impose a nondelegable duty of care on private carriers. Therefore, court affirmed the judgment.

A decision in an extraordinary writ under California Rules of Court, challenges the juvenile court's order denying her reunification services and setting the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.
Affirmed,

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County. Affirmed. State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160, ___ P3d ___ (2006);

A decision regarding escape in the second degree,ORS 162.155,

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County.Affirmed. State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160, ___ P3d ___ (2006).

A decision regarding Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.
Affirmed. State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160, ___ P3d ___ (2006).

A decision in Judicial Review from Department of Consumer and Business Services. Pettioner sought compensation before the MRU for medical services pertaining to a canceled low back surgery, which respondent had refused to pay.