Oregon Court of Appeals: Johnson v. Reese Oregon Nonprecedential Opinion

• The Oregon Court of Appeals issued a nonprecedential memorandum opinion in Johnson v. Reese on August 26, 2026.
• The case involved Martin Allen Johnson as the appellant and Mike Reese, Director for the Oregon Department of Corrections, as the respondent.
• This Oregon Court of Appeals memorandum opinion is designated No. 812 and was issued pursuant to the rules governing nonprecedential opinions.
• Under the applicable citation rules, this non-citable court opinion Oregon may not be cited except as provided by those rules.
• Legal professionals must understand the limited circumstances under which such an appellate decision can be referenced.

The explicit instruction that this non-citable court opinion Oregon may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1) is a cornerstone of ORAP 10.30 citation rules.

The Oregon Court of Appeals recently rendered a judgment in the case identified as Johnson v. Reese, an appellate decision issued on August 26, 2026. This particular ruling, designated No. 812, involved Martin Allen Johnson as the plaintiff-appellant, who brought an action against Mike Reese, the Director for the Oregon Department of Corrections, as the defendant-respondent. The core nature of this Oregon Court of Appeals memorandum opinion is its explicit classification as nonprecedential.

This critical designation means the decision, while resolving the specific dispute between the parties, does not establish a binding legal precedent for future cases. The court's directive explicitly states that this nonprecedential memorandum opinion was issued pursuant to the rules governing such opinions and may not be cited except as provided by those rules. This immediately signals to legal professionals the specific limitations on its use as authoritative legal support.

In Oregon's appellate system, the issuance of a nonprecedential memorandum opinion like the one in Johnson v. Reese is governed by specific procedural rules concerning nonprecedential opinions.

The explicit instruction that this non-citable court opinion Oregon may not be cited except as provided by the applicable rules is a cornerstone of the rules governing nonprecedential opinion citation. This subsection outlines very narrow exceptions, such as when the opinion is relevant to a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. It can also be cited for its persuasive value, though not as binding authority, or to establish a factual or procedural history of a specific case. The intent is to ensure judicial efficiency while still providing a resolution for the parties involved, without unnecessarily expanding the body of binding case law.

The Johnson v. Reese appellate decision serves as a crucial reminder for all legal professionals regarding the careful application of Oregon Court of Appeals memorandum opinion rulings. The nonprecedential nature of this particular judgment means that attorneys cannot rely on it as a definitive statement of law to be applied in other, similar cases. This distinction is paramount in legal research and argument, particularly when dealing with complex litigation, such as cases involving the Oregon Department of Corrections lawsuit.

Failure to adhere to the applicable citation rules when referencing a non-citable court opinion Oregon can undermine the credibility of legal arguments and potentially lead to sanctions or adverse rulings. The specific conditions outlined in the rules governing nonprecedential opinions are not merely suggestions but strict guidelines for when such an opinion can be referenced. Therefore, before incorporating any Oregon Court of Appeals memorandum opinion into legal briefs or advice, practitioners must diligently ascertain its precedential status and ensure compliance with the precise requirements for citation. This case underscores the ongoing need for meticulous attention to procedural rules governing appellate decisions.

Lawyers should note that this Oregon Court of Appeals opinion is nonprecedential and generally cannot be cited as authority, except under the specific conditions outlined in ORAP 10.30(1). This serves as a critical reminder to always verify the precedential value and citation rules of any appellate decision before relying on it in legal arguments or advice.

Source: Original reporting via court document