Legal Opinion

Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 17, 1991No. 2470, 2471, 2472, 2473, 2479, 2590; CA A47810; A47811, A47812, A47813, A48435, A60681PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Petitioners seek review of the boundary commission’s orders approving annexations to the city. They argue that the orders are unlawful, because the statutory authority under which the commission acted constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. We rejected a substantially identical argument in Redland Water Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area LGBC, 63 Or App 641, 648-49, 665 P2d 1241, rev den 295 Or 541 (1983), and we do so again. Petitioners’ other arguments are adversely resolved by Mid-County Future v. Port. Metro. Area LGBC (A47426), 106 Or App 647, 809 P2d 1354 (1991).

A…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  2. Redland Water District v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Multnomah County Rural Fire Protection District No. 10 v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API