Legal Opinion

Morrison v. Clackamas County

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 25, 1933PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

The facts alleged in the complaint show that the property of plaintiff was, by reason of the construction of the jetty by the county, subjected to the destruction alleged for a public use, namely, to protect the county highway and the county bridge, without just compensation. We think the use or destruction of the property amounted to a taking for public use within the meaning of article I, section 18 of the constitution of Oregon. The action of the •’county constituted a taking within the meaning of the constitution just as much as if the county had taken the dirt or soil which was washed…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1872
  2. United States v. CressSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  3. United States v. LynahSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  4. Conger v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Gearin v. Marion CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Thornburg v. Port of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Suess Builders Co. v. City of BeavertonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Tomasek v. Oregon State Highway CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Colberg, Inc. v. State of California Ex Rel. Dept. Pub. Wks.California Supreme Court · 1967
  5. LEVENE ET UX. v. City of SalemOregon Supreme Court · 1951

46 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