Nulph v. Bd. of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
  • Date Filed: 07-27-2016
  • Case #: A157902
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J. for the Court; Hadlock, C.J.; & Tookey, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 144.228(1)(c),the phrase "reasonable cause" is a delegative term requiring the Board to exercise its discretion to define the term when making a decision under ORS 144.228(1)(c).

Nulph sought judicial review of the Board’s denial of his request for a parole consideration hearing, arguing the Board either erred in its interpretation of the phrase “reasonable cause” under ORS 144.228(1)(c) as applied at the time of his conviction, or in the alternative that it did not interpret the statute at all. Under ORS 144.228(1)(c), to obtain a parole consideration hearing the prisoner must give the Board “reasonable cause” that his “dangerous condition is in remission.” The Court held that under the standard set in OR-OSHA v. CBI Services, Inc., 356 Or. 577, 341 P.3d 701 (2014), “reasonable cause” is a delegative term requiring the Board to establish a standard by which the Board determines whether a prisoner deserves a parole consideration hearing. As such, the Court was unable to apply a definition to the term without the Board exercising its discretion to interpret the term. Vacated and remanded.

Advanced Search