Legal Opinion

Wolf v. Oregon Lottery Commission

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 13, 2006No. A125420PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

Petitioners seek review of a rule adopted by the Oregon Lottery Commission (Lottery) establishing the compensation that the Lottery pays to retailers, mostly restaurants, taverns, and convenience stores, who make video lottery games available to the public. Petitioners assert that the Lottery exceeded the legislature’s grant of authority when it promulgated the rule because the statute setting the Lottery’s task, ORS 461.445, required the Lottery to consider retailers’ “reasonable rate of return,” and nothing in the rule or in the rulemaking record indicates that the Lottery did so. We agree…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Springfield Education Ass'n v. Springfield School District No. 19Oregon Supreme Court · 1980
  2. McPherson v. Employment DivisionOregon Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Department of Human ResourcesOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  4. AFSCME Local 2623 v. Department of CorrectionsOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Oregon Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. Oregon Department of CorrectionsOregon Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wolf v. Oregon Lottery CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API