Legal Opinion

Diack v. City of Portland

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 1988No. WPRB 63266 CA A37696 SC S34223PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGillette, J.

In this case we are called upon to examine the impact, if any, of provisions of Oregon’s Scenic Waterways Act, ORS 390.805 et seq (the Act), on a decision to permit hydroelectric generation on a portion of a river that thereafter flows into a scenic waterway. The Water Resources Commission (the commission) issued a permit allowing the City of Portland (the city) to divert water from the Bull Run River for the generation of hydroelectricity. The Bull Run River flows into the Sandy River a short distance above a 12.5-mile stretch of the Sandy River designated as a scenic waterway pursuant to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Springfield Education Ass'n v. Springfield School District No. 19Oregon Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Fifth Avenue Corp. v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1978
  3. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County CourtOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  4. City of Hermiston v. Employment Relations BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Lane Council of Governments v. Lane Council of Government Employes Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1977

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Penn v. Board of ParoleOregon Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Multnomah County Sheriff's Office v. EdwardsOregon Supreme Court · 2017
  3. WaterWatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  4. Doherty v. Oregon Water Resources DirectorOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Colclasure v. Washington County School District No. 48-JOregon Supreme Court · 1993

5 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