Contradictory court orders
Holcom v. Canby Builders Supply
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Bradley Holcom says an Oregon judge allowed him to preserve five claims by amending his complaint by a deadline, and that he did so; before entry, he objected that the written order instead barred several claims, but the order was entered.
- What's at stake
- Whether Holcom can pursue the claims barred by the written order remains unresolved while his request for Supreme Court review is pending.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court distributed his petition for a conference; that step is not a decision to hear the case.
Holcom says an Oregon judge told him he could preserve five claims by amending his complaint by a deadline, and that he met it. He says he objected before the written order was entered because it barred several claims.
The case comes from the Oregon Court of Appeals and turns on Holcom's claim that the written order did not match the judge's recorded ruling.
Question presented
Whether the Due Process Clause permits a State to leave in force — and require a litigant to proceed under — a facially preclusive order that contradicts the court’s recorded ruling, after the litigant timely satisfied the court’s express condition for preserving his causes of action and proved the contradiction before entry.
What happens next
The next step is for the Court to consider whether to hear the case. Holcom's petition is distributed for the Court's Nov. 13, 2026 conference, but that does not guarantee an order date.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- What does Holcom's petition say about due process?
- It asks whether the Constitution's guarantee of fair treatment (due process) allows Oregon to enforce an order that Holcom says conflicts with the judge's recorded ruling, after he says he met the deadline and objected before the order was entered.
Sources
Primary materials from the Court and the parties. Grounded in docket records and cited sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.