Opinion · Oregon Supreme Court
State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Charles
299 Or. 341
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Oregon Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Oregon
- Date
- 1985-07-02
- Topic
- bankruptcy
How later courts describe this case
- dismissing petition as improvidently granted, because Court of Appeals decision rested on an independent ground and state petitioned for review on one ground only; thus, this court would be required to affirm the Court of Appeals on the issue for which review was not sought
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Charles. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 3 opinions
We accepted review in this case to consider the meaning of the term “qualified expert witness” as that term is used in the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 USC § 1912(e). In addition to the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of that term, its decision rested on an independent ground, the state’s failure to show that remedial efforts to prevent the breakup of the family were unsuccessful. The state petitioned for review on one ground only. At oral argument, the state conceded that, regardless of this court’s resolution of the issue on which review is sought, we must affirm the Court of Appeals on the issue for which review was not sought. For this reason, we do not consider the issue raised in the petition for review and dismiss this petition as improvidently granted.1
Petition dismissed as improvidently granted.
Day v. SAIF, 288 Or 77, 602 P2d 258 (1979); Fitch v. Public Welfare Div., 279 Or 297, 567 P2d 117 (1977).