Case Name: WILLIAM JAMES OWENS, Appellant, v. S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2001-05-23
Citations: 174 Or. App. 397
Docket Number: 96C-14170; A100262
Parties: WILLIAM JAMES OWENS, Appellant, v. S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 174
Pages: 397–398

Head Matter:
Submitted on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court July 17, 2000,
reversed and remanded May 23, 2001
WILLIAM JAMES OWENS, Appellant, v. S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent.
96C-14170; A100262
25 P3d415
Jay Edwards for appellant.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, and Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
This case comes before the court on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court in the light of its opinion in Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or 180, 998 P2d 661 (2000). We previously dismissed plaintiffs claim as moot on the ground that the 1995 order that he sought to challenge was superseded by a 1997 order. Owens v. Thompson, 159 Or App 33, 976 P2d 574 (1999), remanded 330 Or 360, 6 P3d 1102 (2000). Hamel indicates that claims such as plaintiffs claim are not moot.
In the trial court, the state moved to dismiss solely on the ground that the 1997 order was proper; the state did not assert or attempt to prove that the 1995 order was valid. Because the 1995 order was properly at issue in this case, the trial court erred in granting the state's motion to dismiss. On remand, the trial court should evaluate the evidence that was before the Board when it made its 1995 decision.
Reversed and remanded.