Ackerley Communications, Inc. v. Multnomah County
734 P.2d 885, 303 Or. 165
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided March 31, 1987·No. LUBA 83-028, 83-034, 83-051; CA A34195; SC S31717·Published·Cited by 11 cases
Opinions
[166]*166MEMORANDUM OPINION
The petitioner on review, Multnomah County, has filed a motion which reads as follows:
“Petitioner herein, Multnomah County, hereby withdraws its Petition for Review as though the same was never filed, and moves the Court to dismiss the Petition without taking any other action. If the Court should refuse to grant this Motion to withdraw Petition and instead proposes to vacate the Court of Appeals Opinion involved herein, petitioner and respondent ask leave to be heard further on that matter.”
Without expressing an opinion on the merits of this case, we dismiss the Petition for Review.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ackerley Communications, Inc. v. Multnomah County, 734 P.2d 885, 303 Or. 165 (Or. 1987).
734 P.2d 885 (Ackerley Communications, Inc. v. Multnomah County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
West Coast Media, LLC v. City of Gladstone
84 P.3d 213 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2004)
State v. Stoneman
888 P.2d 39 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1994)
Nelson v. City of Lake Oswego
869 P.2d 350 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1994)
City of Eugene v. Miller
851 P.2d 1142 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1993)
Moser v. Frohnmayer
829 P.2d 84 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1992)
Northwest Advancement v. Bureau of Labor
772 P.2d 934 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1989)
O'QUINN v. State Bar of Texas
763 S.W.2d 397 (Texas Supreme Court, 1988)
City of Hillsboro v. Purcell
743 P.2d 1119 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1987)