Legal Opinion
State v. Hawk
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided July 25, 1922PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.
It is contended on behalf of defendant Mohler that the demurrer to the complaint raises the question whether the board of fish and game commissioners has authority to exercise the power of eminent domain; and that the act creating the board of fish and game commissioners did not declare the propagation of fish a public use. It should be noted at the outset that the plaintiff, State of Oregon, is exercising the power of eminent domain, and not the board of fish and game commissioners. The action is instituted by the state upon the relation of the board.
Section 7089, Or. L., so far as material…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Water Works Co. v. BurkhartIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
- City of Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Simmons v. WintersOregon Supreme Court · 1891
- Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- South Park Commissioners v. DunlevyIllinois Supreme Court · 1878
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. BurkOregon Supreme Court · 1954
- Foeller v. Housing Authority of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1953
- Tomasek v. Oregon State Highway CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1952
- Burnquist v. CookSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- State Highway Commission v. KendrickOregon Supreme Court · 1961
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.