Legal Opinion
Keane v. City of Portland
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided March 17, 1925PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBelt, J.
It is fundamental that a municipality, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, is a tribunal of limited and special jurisdiction, and must comply strictly with the terms of its charter in respect thereto.
When its proceedings are challenged by direct attack as in the instant case (Acton v. Lamberson et al., 102 Or. 472 (202 Pac. 421, 202 Pac. 732); Christensen v. Lane Co., 90 Or. 401 (175 Pac. 845); Lieblin v. Breyman Leather Co., 82 Or. 22 (160 Pac. 1167); Morrill v. Morrill, 20 Or. 96 (25 Pac. 362, 23 Am. St. Rep. 95, 11 L. R. A. 155), it should affirmatively appear from…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Morrill v. MorrillOregon Supreme Court · 1890
- Minard v. Douglas CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1881
- Smith v. CameronOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- State v. HawkOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Acton v. LambersonOregon Supreme Court · 1921
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. BurkOregon Supreme Court · 1954
- State Highway Commission v. Superbilt Manufacturing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1955
- State Highway Commission v. BaileyOregon Supreme Court · 1957
- State Highway Commission v. StumboOregon Supreme Court · 1960
- State Highway Commission v. Empire Building Material Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1974
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.