Delzell v. Coursey, S. A151983
| Decision Date | 12 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | NOS. A151983,S061726,S. A151983 |
| Citation | 318 P.3d 749,354 Or. 597 |
| Parties | Joel Eugene Delzell v. Coursey |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
258 Or.App. 674, 310 P.3d 1202. The trial court's general judgment of dismissal is ambiguous regarding the reason or reasons why the court dismissed. It is not clear whether the trial court dismissed the petition because it was “time-barred and/or successive,” or because it was meritless (failed to state a claim), or for both those reasons. The reasons for the dismissal may affect whether the judgment is appealable, see ORS 138.525(3), and whether the trial court could dismiss with prejudice, see ORS 138.525(4). Accordingly, the petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is vacated, and the general judgment of the trial court is vacated. The matter is remanded to the trial court for that court to clarify its ruling by appropriate order or judgment.
ALLOWED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayward v. Premo
...dismissal of a petition as time-barred and successive and the dismissal of a petition for failure to state a claim, Delzell v. Coursey , 354 Or. 597, 318 P.3d 749 (2013), as have we, Breece v. Amsberry , 279 Or.App. 648, 650–51, 381 P.3d 1086, 2016 WL 4013744 (2016). Under ORS 138.525, only......
- State v. Mays
- State v. K. R. S. (In re K. R. S.)
- State v. Slater