Lane County v. State ex rel. Executive Department

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Lane County v. State ex rel. Executive Department

851 P.2d 633, 119 Or. App. 504, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 609

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 21, 1993

Docket16-87-09905; CA A73797

StatusPublished

This text of 851 P.2d 633 (Lane County v. State ex rel. Executive Department) 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

Lane County v. State ex rel. Executive Department, 851 P.2d 633, 119 Or. App. 504, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 609 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment, following a trial to the court, dismissing his counterclaims against Lane County. He maintains that the county’s policy of selecting sergeants exclusively from employees within a bargaining unit represented by the Lane County Peace Officers’ Association violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution.¹

An Article I, section 20, challenge will succeed if the party asserting the challenge shows

“(1) that another group has been granted a ‘privilege’ or ‘immunity’ that their group has not been granted, (2) that the regulations discriminate against a ‘true class’ on the basis of characteristics that they have apart from the regulations themselves and (3) that the distinction between classes either is impermissibly based on persons’ immutable characteristics and reflects ‘invidious’ social or political premises or has no rational foundation in light of the enabling statute’s purposes.” Northwest Advancement v. Bureau of Labor, 96 Or App 133, 142, 772 P2d 934, rev den 308 Or 315 (1989).

Alternatively, the challenge will succeed if a privilege or immunity is granted by law on the basis of a classification created by the law, if the law does not leave the class open for others to join on equal terms. State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 240-41, 630 P2d 810 (1981).

Appellant makes no attempt to fit his case within either framework, apparently conceding that such an attempt would be futile. His argument, although historically interesting, is without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment, following a trial to the court, dismissing his counterclaims against Lane County. He maintains that the county’s policy of selecting sergeants exclusively from employees within a bargaining unit represented by the Lane County Peace Officers’ Association violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution.¹

An Article I, section 20, challenge will succeed if the party asserting the challenge shows

“(1) that another group has been granted a ‘privilege’ or ‘immunity’ that their group has not been granted, (2) that the regulations discriminate against a ‘true class’ on the basis of characteristics that they have apart from the regulations themselves and (3) that the distinction between classes either is impermissibly based on persons’ immutable characteristics and reflects ‘invidious’ social or political premises or has no rational foundation in light of the enabling statute’s purposes.” Northwest Advancement v. Bureau of Labor, 96 Or App 133, 142, 772 P2d 934, rev den 308 Or 315 (1989).

Alternatively, the challenge will succeed if a privilege or immunity is granted by law on the basis of a classification created by the law, if the law does not leave the class open for others to join on equal terms. State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 240-41, 630 P2d 810 (1981).

Appellant makes no attempt to fit his case within either framework, apparently conceding that such an attempt would be futile. His argument, although historically interesting, is without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

851 P.2d 633, 119 Or. App. 504, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-county-v-state-ex-rel-executive-department-orctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack