Appealing University of Oregon Student Conduct Hearing to Court – Writ of Review - Arnold Law in Eugene, Oregon – Powerful Advocacy. Proven Results.

Appealing University of Oregon Student Conduct Hearing to Court – Writ of Review

09.29.2015 – Jessica May and Janet Holcomb

Going to and losing a so called student conduct “hearing” at the University of Oregon or Oregon State University may have devastating consequences. The attorneys at Arnold Law have experience in challenging this process from the university conference and then university appeal all the way up to Oregon Circuit Courts.

An Oregon University expulsion, suspension or other discipline is appealable to an independent Oregon Court

ORS 34.020 states that “any party to any process or proceeding before or by any inferior court, officer, or tribunal may have the decision or determination thereof reviewed for errors…” A writ of review is allowed in all cases in which a substantial interest of a plaintiff has been injured and an inferior court including an officer or tribunal other than an agency as defined in ORS 183.310(1) in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions appears to have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to follow the procedure applicable to the matter before it, made a finding not supported by substantial evidence in the record, improperly construed the applicable law, or rendered a decision that is unconstitutional. ORS 34.040.

A student is a party to a process (subject to the Special Administrative Conference administered by the University of Oregon). The University of Oregon is a party and eligible for this process, as the University of Oregon administers the Special Administrative Conference. The University of Oregon, in this capacity, is therefore considered an officer or a tribunal. As a result of a student being a party to a proceeding conducted by an officer or tribunal, he has been injured and may thus file a writ or review to get judicial relief from a University of Oregon sanction.

Furthermore, by conducting a Special Administrative Conference, making a finding of responsibility, and imposing sanctions, the University of Oregon exercises quasi-judicial functions. “A judicial or quasi-judicial function is one that involves or requires an adjudicatory process.” Koch v. City of Portland, 306 Or. 444, 448 (1988).  “A typical adjudicatory process results in a decision, applies pre-existing criteria to concrete facts and is directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small number of persons.” Id.

A decision is made by the University of Oregon to notice a student that he had possibly violated the Student Conduct Code. A decision is made again by the University when a student is found responsible for a violation of the Student Conduct Code and sanctions are imposed. A decision is made yet again by the University when the University denies a student’s appeal. These decisions are reached after the University applies pre-existing criteria, namely the Student Conduct Code.

Consequently, a writ of review is available to a student who was a party to a proceeding conducted by an officer or tribunal who injured a student in its exercise of a quasi-judicial act.

Don’t let the University of Oregon have all the control: Hire an attorney and take them and the Oregon Student Conduct Code to court

It’s important to remember that the process does not stop with the University. It’s a bias and unfair system that needs to be challenged in court.  Due process is a constitutional right.  The attorneys at Arnold Law may be able to assist you in this process as we have done for others. Call 541-338-9111 for more information or fill out the form to the left (or chat to the right).

More Related Articles

Interpreters Available
  • Representative Cases

    Sodomy I (Jessica’s Law) – 3 Measure 11 counts dismissed after innocence proved

    This was a Jessica’s Law case where, if convicted, Client was facing a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 25 to 75 years in prison. Client passed a polygraph in the case and his attorneys Mike Arnold and Lissa Casey conducted an investigation illustrating his actual innocence.

    Michael Arnold, stated, “Our client is thankful for his release and dismissal of these terrible false accusations against him. He was a wrongfully accused innocent man who had three months of his life stolen from him due to lies and an incomplete investigation. Arnold Law’s investigation showed a lack of motive and lack of opportunity to commit the acts alleged against him.The Government’s incomplete investigation turned what should have been an uncomfortable family matter involving a very troubled child into an unjustly incarcerated man and placed unthinkable stress on his family...”

    Sex Abuse Case dismissed

    Client charged with sexually abusing his employee. After an investigation showed that some of the complaining witnesses recanted their statements and motives for false accusations discovered, case dismissed before trial.

    Custody case motivates false Measure 11 accusations against father

    Client jailed with $1.68 million bail setting after being falsely accused of smothering his wife with a pillow and sexually assaulting two adoptive daughters, among other claims. The case eventually resolved with an Alford Plea to one count of coercion for allegedly forcing a remote control out of wife’s hands, which is expungeable at the end of probation, no additional jail time, and a dismissal of all remaining charges. After the dismissal, client was able to resume parenting time with his biological daughter and continue to be an active father.

    Attempted Sex Abuse I – Dismissed

    Client accused of having unwanted sexual contact with a woman while she slept in a hotel room. After thorough defense investigation of witnesses to incident were presented to the DA, all charges were dismissed before trial.


    Sexual Harassment Defense – Hospital Administrator Stalking

    Mike Arnold defended the administrator of a hospital who pursued a relationship with a young woman who was apparently giving him mixed signals. Before contacting our firm he was convicted of a criminal stalking charge and lost a stalking order trial. She then sued him for $500,000 claiming sexual harassment, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In a Marion County jury trial after a brutal cross-examination of the plaintiff and picking apart their psychologist expert, we won a defense verdict.


    Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings – False Stalking Order to Gain Custody

    Received a $50,000 judgment through bankruptcy adversarial proceeding due to mother lying to get a stalking order.

    Stalking Order – Lying about Rape to Gain Custody

    We won a dismissal after trial. Court made findings of fact that stalking order was brought for an improper purpose.


    Measure 11 Dismissal

    “I am not a resident of Oregon and was put in the awkward position of finding a competent attorney for my son who had just been charged with a very serious felony while attending a university here. My wife and I interviewed a number of the top attorneys throughout the state and also asked for advice from several attorney friends and a judge from our home state. None of the numerous attorneys we interviewed came close to the quality, knowledge and compassion of the Arnold Law Firm. They took care of my son and advised him in jail even before we had agreed to hire them. That really showed me the quality of this firm. I can not say enough good things about their firm. Everyone in the office is professional and personable.

    “My son was represented by Mike Arnold and Emilia Gardner. They are nothing short of incredible and almost like family. They left no stone unturned and worked relentlessly on his case. My son is now a free man and able to move forward with his life. Thank you all for everything you have done. You are the best!”