· 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 CourtListenerSourced 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.