Opinion · Orlaw Oregon
PITT v. SUNDERLAND, 56 Or. App. 751 (1982)
In the Matter of Application of Sherman Theo Pitt, for a Writ ofHabeas Corpus, PITT, Appellant, v. SUNDERLAND, Respondent., 642 P.2d 703 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Orlaw Oregon
- Jurisdiction
- Orlaw
- Date
- 1982-04-05
- Topic
- general
PITT v. SUNDERLAND, 56 Or. App. 751 (1982) 642 P.2d 703 In the Matter of the Application of Sherman Theo Pitt, for a Writ ofHabeas Corpus, PITT, Appellant, v. SUNDERLAND, Respondent. No. 16-81-06435, CA A22089Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted December 18, 1981 Appeal dismissed April 5, 1982 Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed PITT v. SUNDERLAND, 56 Or. App. 751 (1982). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
PITT v. SUNDERLAND,56 Or. App. 751(1982)
642 P.2d 703
In the Matter of the Application of Sherman Theo Pitt, for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus, PITT,Appellant,v. SUNDERLAND,Respondent.
No. 16-81-06435, CA A22089
Oregon Court of Appeals.
Argued and submitted December 18, 1981
Appeal dismissed April 5, 1982
Maurice K. Merten, Judge.
William F. Nessly, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General and William F. Gary, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Warren, Judges.
Appeal dismissed.Page 752
Appeal dismissed.Page 753
- Proceeding by habeas corpus is a civil proceeding.Holland v.Gladden,229 Or. 573,368 P.2d 331(1962). Demurrers shall not be used. ORCP 13C. ↩