Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. v. Davis
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentRoberts, J.
I dissent because I do not agree that Or Newspaper Publ. v. Peterson, 244 Or 116, 415 P2d 21 (1966), "compels the conclusion that the statutes do not delegate to the Commissioner the authority to enact the 'tagline’ rule.” 43 Or App 1006.
In Peterson, a Board of Pharmacy ruling prohibiting advertising was held outside that Board’s statutory authority. A reading of the ORS chapters creating *1018the position of Public Utility Commissioner and describing his powers and duties convinces me that his function is distinguishable from that of the Board of Pharmacy and that the legislature has granted the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- McPherson v. Employment DivisionOregon Supreme Court · 1979
- Application of Portland General Elec. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1977
- Oregon Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. PetersonOregon Supreme Court · 1966
- Oliver v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
- Van Ripper v. Oregon Liquor Control CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1961
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.