Legal Opinion

Dinsdale v. Young

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 20, 1985No. 148463; CA A32089PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff Dinsdale 1 appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of this mandamus action, by which plaintiffs sought to compel defendants to process plaintiffs’ water permit applications. The relevant facts are set out in Dinsdale v. Young, 72 Or App 642, 697 P2d 196 (1985).

Defendants argue, inter alia, that the dismissal was proper because plaintiffs have “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” ORS 34.110. That remedy, according to defendants, is a proceeding under ORS 183.490 to compel defendants to act and a proceeding under ORS 183.400 to challenge the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. School District No. 48 v. Fair Dismissal Appeals BoardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
  2. Dinsdale v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mongelli v. Oregon Life & Health Guaranty Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  2. Dinsdale v. YoungOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Dinsdale v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  4. Olsten Temporary Services, Inc. v. LiptonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  5. Scovell v. GoldschmidtCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API