Legal Opinion

Jimenez v. Multnomah Cnty. & Multnomah Cnty. Animal Servs.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 6, 2019No. A163515 (Control); A163516PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtEgan, C. J.

*404*372These two cases, which were consolidated for appeal, require us to interpret provisions of the Multnomah County Code ("MCC") that make it unlawful for a person to "permit" a dog to engage in certain dangerous behavior. MCC § 13.305(B). Plaintiffs were cited with Notices of Infraction ("NOIs") alleging violations of MCC § 13.305(B)(10) and (11). A hearings officer affirmed the NOIs. In both cases, plaintiffs filed petitions for writs of review under ORS 34.040, asserting that the hearings officer improperly construed the law in affirming the NOIs. The trial court dismissed both petitions,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re the Marriage of PolacekOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  2. City of Eugene v. Comcast of Oregon II, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Department of Revenue v. FarisOregon Supreme Court · 2008

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Gross v. Multnomah CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API