Oregon Appellate Court, September 10, 2020
by: Rankin Johnson • September 15, 2020 • no comments
m |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Petitioner raised multiple issues relating to his mental health. Defendant, in seeking summary judgment, argued that petitioner was required to attach documents in support of his factual allegations. Petitioner responded that he could testify in support of those allegations. The Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner. The court declined to hold that the error was harmless, because, in accepting petitioner's guilty plea, the original trial court could have been presented with the question of petitioner's fitness and made inquiries to resolve it. | Petitioner raised multiple issues relating to his mental health. Defendant, in seeking summary judgment, argued that petitioner was required to attach documents in support of his factual allegations. Petitioner responded that he could testify in support of those allegations. The Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner. The court declined to hold that the error was harmless, because, in accepting petitioner's guilty plea, the original trial court could have been presented with the question of petitioner's fitness and made inquiries to resolve it. | ||
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A166355 Snyder v. Amesberry 306 Or App 439 (September 10, 2020) (James) (Umatilla County, Hill) | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A166355 Snyder v. Amesberry] 306 Or App 439 (September 10, 2020) (James) (Umatilla County, Hill) |
Latest revision as of 13:56, October 2, 2020
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Summary-judgment procedure
Post-conviction court was required to hold a hearing when summary-judgment pleadings raised issue of fact. Reversed and remanded.
Petitioner raised multiple issues relating to his mental health. Defendant, in seeking summary judgment, argued that petitioner was required to attach documents in support of his factual allegations. Petitioner responded that he could testify in support of those allegations. The Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner. The court declined to hold that the error was harmless, because, in accepting petitioner's guilty plea, the original trial court could have been presented with the question of petitioner's fitness and made inquiries to resolve it.
Snyder v. Amesberry 306 Or App 439 (September 10, 2020) (James) (Umatilla County, Hill)
HABEAS CORPUS - Medical care
Pleadings raised a fact question regarding defendant's indifference to plaintiff's medical needs, such that dismissal was not appropriate. Reversed.
Easley v. Bowser 306 Or App 460 (September 10, 2020) (Kamins) (Umatilla County, Temple)
