Summary
dismissing petition as improvidently granted, because Court of Appeals decision rested on an independent ground and state petitioned for review on one ground only; thus, this court would be required to affirm the Court of Appeals on the issue for which review was not sought
Summary of this case from Strawn v. Farmers Insurance Company of OregonOpinion
TC 80,230; CA A29488; SC S31309
Argued and submitted March 5, 1985
Petition dismissed as improvidently granted July 2, 1985
In Banc
On review from the Court of Appeals.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County. Mercedes F. Deiz, Judge. 70 Or. App. 10, 688 P.2d 1354 (1984).
Linda J. DeVries, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With her on the briefs were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, and Karen H. Green, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
Patrick R. Berg, Lake Oswego, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the briefs was Buckley, Johnson, Carlson, Bolen Berg, P.C., Lake Oswego.
LeRoy W. Wilder, Portland, argued the cause for intervenor on review. With him on the brief was Hobbs, Straus, Dean Wilder, Portland.
Gary Forrester, Native American Indian Program, Oregon Legal Services, Portland, filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.
PER CURIAM
Petition dismissed as improvidently granted.
We accepted review in this case to consider the meaning of the term "qualified expert witness" as that term is used in the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(e). In addition to the Court of Appeals' interpretation of that term, its decision rested on an independent ground, the state's failure to show that remedial efforts to prevent the breakup of the family were unsuccessful. The state petitioned for review on one ground only. At oral argument, the state conceded that, regardless of this court's resolution of the issue on which review is sought, we must affirm the Court of Appeals on the issue for which review was not sought. For this reason, we do not consider the issue raised in the petition for review and dismiss this petition as improvidently granted.
Day v. SAIF, 288 Or. 77, 602 P.2d 258 (1979); Fitch v. Public Welfare Div., 279 Or. 297, 567 P.2d 117 (1977).
Petition dismissed as improvidently granted.