Legal Opinion · Dissent

Amalgamated Transit Union-Division 757 v. Yerkovich

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 27, 1976No. 417-822, CA 5173Published

1Dissent

*229LEE, «L,

dissenting.

I dissent because I believe the majority has denied the voters of Portland their constitutional right of initiative.

The majority’s error is discernible from the very passages they quote. Part of the majority’s quotation from Monahan v. Funk, 137 Or 580, 584, 3 P2d 778 (1931) states that:

"In determining whether the ordinance in question was legislative or administrative, we notice that the authorities in the books are in accord that actions which relate to subjects of a permanent or general character are considered to be legislative, while those which are temporary in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Rose v. Port of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Monahan v. FunkOregon Supreme Court · 1931
  3. State of Oregon v. Blount, Sr.Oregon Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Othus v. KozerOregon Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Kays v. McCallOregon Supreme Court · 1966

3 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