Legal Opinion

Chapman v. Perron

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 8, 1984No. 8973; CA A30072PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWarren, J.

Plaintiffs filed a petition for a statutory way of necessity across land owned by defendants. The trial court found that, although the petition would “probably” be granted on the facts, with a modification of the proposed route, the current statute, as amended in 1979, violates Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution, because it does not require a “finding” that the public, as well as the petitioner, needs to have ingress and egress to the property. We conclude that the statute does not violate the Oregon Constitution and reverse and remand.

The procedure for establishing a statutory…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Towns v. Klamath CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1898
  2. City of Portland v. WelchOregon Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Witham v. OsburnOregon Supreme Court · 1873
  4. Barkley Et Ux. v. GibbsOregon Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Aylett v. MardisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dudek v. Umatilla CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  2. Schoeneman v. MeyerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  3. Nice v. PridayCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  4. Pike v. WyllieCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  5. Pike v. WyllieCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API