Legal Opinion

Dickinson v. Davis

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 1977No. CA 5402, SC 24722PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLinde, J.

Wool wine Trucking Company and Dickinson, respondents in this case, collaborated in an arrangement by which Dickinson would operate an automobile parts delivery service in Portland under an existing Public Utility Commissioner’s permit held by Wool-wine until Dickinson could determine whether the business would be profitable. When Dickinson applied for a PUC permit in his own name some seven months later, the commissioner learned of this arrangement and initiated proceedings under ORS 767.470, to impose civil penalties of $100 a day for 229 days of unlawful operation, or $22,900 against each…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission of WisconsinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. WallaceOregon Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Tite v. State Tax CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Casciato v. Oregon Liquor Control CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1947

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

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Springfield Education Ass'n v. Springfield School District No. 19Oregon Supreme Court · 1980
  2. State v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  3. State v. ClarkOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Megdal v. Oregon State Board of Dental ExaminersOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Nearing v. WeaverOregon Supreme Court · 1983

39 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