Emery v. State

I dissent from the majority opinion because I believe the Oregon Constitution requires the state to compensate plaintiffs for the destruction of their pickup truck. I agree with the majority that the statutory terms “return” and “restore” have the same meaning. I disagree, however, that compliance *773with either term can be achieved by the empty gesture of giving a person back the damaged pieces of his or her property.

When the legislature directed the state to “return the things seized” it must certainly have contemplated that, despite temporary seizure, “things” would retain some value to which…