Legal Opinion

Whitbeck v. Funk

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1932PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, C. J.

Plaintiff contends that Ordinance No. 61566 is a franchise ordinance and, therefore, comes within the provisions of section 173 of the charter, quoted above, and is subject to the referendum.

A franchise is a special privilege granted by the government to a person or corporation, which privilege does not belong to the citizens of a country generally, of common right: 26 C. J. 1008, § 1. A franchise confers the right to exercise powers or to do and perform acts which, without such grant, the person to whom it is granted could not do or perform: Oregon v. Portland General Electric Co., 52 Or.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Oregon v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Monahan v. FunkOregon Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Campbell v. City of EugeneOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Joplin v. Ten BrookOregon Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Roy v. BeveridgeOregon Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489Oregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Kelley v. JohnNebraska Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Keigley v. Bench, City RecorderUtah Supreme Court · 1939
  4. City of Bowie v. County CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1970
  5. Foster v. ClarkOregon Supreme Court · 1990

17 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