Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Brewer v. Department of Fish & Wildlife

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 10, 2000No. 97-10-38339 and 97-10-38340 CA A103245 (Control) and CA A103246Published

1ConcurrenceLandau, P. J.

I join in the majority’s analysis and disposition of this case. It has struggled thoughtfully and candidly with the existing case law concerning the scope and effect of the so-called “remedies clause” of Article I, section 10, and has developed a test that is consistent with at least most of the more recent cases construing the clause. To be sure, the majority’s resolution cannot be reconciled with all of the applicable precedents. That is because the applicable precedents themselves cannot be reconciled. It is to explore that point that I write separately, in the hope that it may prompt some…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Singer v. SheppardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Priest v. PearceOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Andrews v. O'HEARNNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Kilminster v. Day Management Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Neher v. ChartierOregon Supreme Court · 1994

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API