Heinzel v. Shipman

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Heinzel v. Shipman

736 P.2d 195, 85 Or. App. 207

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 22, 1987

Docket85-0447; CA A39410

StatusPublished

This text of 736 P.2d 195 (Heinzel v. Shipman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heinzel v. Shipman, 736 P.2d 195, 85 Or. App. 207 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs appeal a judgment dismissing their petition for a writ of mandamus. They seek to compel defendant to issue to them multiple weapons licenses,¹ pursuant to ORS 166.290(1):

“The sheriff of a county, upon proof before the sheriff, that the person applying therefore is of good moral character, and that good cause exists for the issuance therefore, may issue to such person a license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver or other firearm for a period of one year from the date of the license * * *.”²

Plaintiffs argue that, under that statute, defendant has the authority to issue multiple weapons licenses.

Plaintiffs confuse defendant’s authority to issue such licenses with his duty to do so.

“ ‘A relator is not entitled to mandamus unless he has a clear legal right to the performance of a particular duty sought to be enforced and unless the defendant has a clear legal duty to do the thing he is called upon to do.’ ” Brown v. Dearborn, 52 Or App 237, 243, 628 P2d 405, rev den 291 Or 368 (1981), quoting Lafferty v. Newby, 200 Or 685, 702, 268 P2d 589 (1954) (Rossman, J., specially concurring).

Even if ORS 166.290(1) grants a sheriff the authority to issue multiple weapons licenses,³ it cannot be construed to set forth a clear legal duty that requires the sheriff to grant them. The trial court did not err.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs appeal a judgment dismissing their petition for a writ of mandamus. They seek to compel defendant to issue to them multiple weapons licenses,¹ pursuant to ORS 166.290(1):

“The sheriff of a county, upon proof before the sheriff, that the person applying therefore is of good moral character, and that good cause exists for the issuance therefore, may issue to such person a license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver or other firearm for a period of one year from the date of the license * * *.”²

Plaintiffs argue that, under that statute, defendant has the authority to issue multiple weapons licenses.

Plaintiffs confuse defendant’s authority to issue such licenses with his duty to do so.

“ ‘A relator is not entitled to mandamus unless he has a clear legal right to the performance of a particular duty sought to be enforced and unless the defendant has a clear legal duty to do the thing he is called upon to do.’ ” Brown v. Dearborn, 52 Or App 237, 243, 628 P2d 405, rev den 291 Or 368 (1981), quoting Lafferty v. Newby, 200 Or 685, 702, 268 P2d 589 (1954) (Rossman, J., specially concurring).

Even if ORS 166.290(1) grants a sheriff the authority to issue multiple weapons licenses,³ it cannot be construed to set forth a clear legal duty that requires the sheriff to grant them. The trial court did not err.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

736 P.2d 195, 85 Or. App. 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heinzel-v-shipman-orctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack