Skip to main content
· 12/29/2010

Biggerstaff v. Board of County Commissioners

Citations

  • 245 P.3d 688
  • 240 Or. App. 46
  • 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1672

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • recognizing our discretion whether to consider an alternative basis to affirm
  • declining to consider alternative bases for affirmance where “contentions were not preserved, much less fully developed”
  • declining to exercise discretion to affirm on an alternate basis where the contentions “were not preserved, much less fully developed” in the proceedings below
  • declining to exercise “prudential discretion” to consider various alternative bases for affirmance that were not raised, “much less developed,” in the proceedings under review and “present [ed] substantial issues of statutory and constitutional law”
  • “[O]ur consideration of an alternative basis for affirmance is a matter of prudential discretion and not compulsion.”
  • “[0]ur consideration of an alternative basis for affirmance is a matter of prudential discretion and not compulsion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Haselton, Armstrong, Duncan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.