Multnomah County v. Howell
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
Plaintiff Multnomah County brought suit to enjoin defendant from conducting rock-quarrying operations on his land which lies along the Sandy River gorge east of Troutdale. The land is zoned F-2, agricultural-residential, where rock quarrying is prohibited. After lengthy interlocutory proceedings extending over more than a year, the case was tried and the court entered a decree declaring that as applied to a portion of defendant’s land the county’s zoning ordinance amounted to “a taking or a confiscation without just compensation,” and was therefore invalid. Plaintiff appeals.
In early 1958…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Arverne Bay Construction Co. v. ThatcherNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Shepard v. Village of SkaneatelesNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
- Morris County Land Improvement Co. v. Township of Parsippany-Troy HillsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1963
- People v. Calvar CorporationNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
- Garbev Zoning CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Fifth Avenue Corp. v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1978
- American Savings and Loan Association, a California Corporation v. County of Marin, a Public EntityCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Bevan v. Brandon TownshipMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
- Aptos Seascape Corp. v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Joyce v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1976
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.