Title: Weaver v. Belleque
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S058700
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: November 5, 2010

FILED: November 5, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
RONALD R. WEAVER,
Petitioner/Relator,
v.
BRIAN BELLEQUE,
Superintendent,
Oregon State Penitentiary,
Defendant/Adverse
Party.
(CC
07C23515; SC S058700)
Original proceeding in
mandamus.*  Considered and under advisement on November 3, 2010.
Ronald R. Weaver,
Relator, pro se, filed the petition for alternative writ of mandamus and
emergency motion to stay trial court proceedings.
No appearance contra.
Before De Muniz, C.
J., and Gillette, Durham, Kistler, Balmer, and Walters, JJ.**
PER CURIAM
The petition for
alternative writ of mandamus is denied.  The emergency motion to stay trial
court proceedings is dismissed as moot.
De Muniz, C. J., concurred
and filed an opinion.
*On petition for
alternative writ of mandamus from an order of the Marion County Circuit
Court,
Jamese Rhoades,
Judge.
**Linder, J., did not
participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
PER CURIAM
The petition for alternative writ of
mandamus is denied. The emergency motion to stay trial court proceedings is
dismissed as moot.
DE MUNIZ, C. J., concurring.
I write to expressly note the mandatory
nature of the obligation imposed by UTCR 5.050 to provide oral argument on
motions filed in civil cases when requested by a party.  In Zehr v Haugen, 318
Or 647, 652, 871 P2d 1006 (1994), this court described that obligation in the
following terms:
"UTCR 5.050(1) is expressed in mandatory terms:  'There must be oral argument'
if requested in the form specified.  * * * Neither is the rule an empty
gesture.  Oral argument is an important way in which counsel communicate to the
court the efficacy of their client's positions, and it is the only opportunity
for the court fully to inform itself through a process of questions and
answers.  The trial court erred in refusing plaintiff's request, made in the
form specified in the rule for oral argument."
Nevertheless, in Zehr, this
court did not require reversal for failure to provide oral argument because the
plaintiffs did not demonstrate they were prejudiced by the court's refusal to
grant them oral argument.  Id. at 652-53.  In this case, it also does
not appear that relator was prejudiced by the failure of one trial court judge to
afford him the opportunity to orally argue pro se on his motion seeking
disqualification of the trial court judge presiding over relator's pending
case.  Because the record does not establish prejudice to relator, I join in
the court's decision denying relator's request that this court exercise its
discretion to grant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief.  I do note,
however, that UTCR 5.050 imposes a mandatory requirement with which trial
courts must comply.