Legal Opinion

Multnomah County v. Howell

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 27, 1972PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. Arverne Bay Construction Co. v. ThatcherNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
  2. Shepard v. Village of SkaneatelesNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
  3. Morris County Land Improvement Co. v. Township of Parsippany-Troy HillsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1963
  4. People v. Calvar CorporationNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
  5. Garbev Zoning CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Fifth Avenue Corp. v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. American Savings and Loan Association, a California Corporation v. County of Marin, a Public EntityCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
  3. Bevan v. Brandon TownshipMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Aptos Seascape Corp. v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
  5. Joyce v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1976

6 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