Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission

809 P.2d 1353, 106 Or. App. 700, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 576

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 17, 1991

Docket2470, 2471, 2472, 2473, 2479, 2590; CA A47810; A47811, A47812, A47813, A48435, A60681

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 809 P.2d 1353 (Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission) 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

Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission, 809 P.2d 1353, 106 Or. App. 700, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 576 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioners seek review of the boundary commission’s orders approving annexations to the city. They argue that the orders are unlawful, because the statutory authority under which the commission acted constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. We rejected a substantially identical argument in Redland Water Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area LGBC, 63 Or App 641, 648-49, 665 P2d 1241, rev den 295 Or 541 (1983), and we do so again. Petitioners’ other arguments are adversely resolved by Mid-County Future v. Port. Metro. Area LGBC (A47426), 106 Or App 647, 809 P2d 1354 (1991).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Petitioners seek review of the boundary commission’s orders approving annexations to the city. They argue that the orders are unlawful, because the statutory authority under which the commission acted constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. We rejected a substantially identical argument in Redland Water Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area LGBC, 63 Or App 641, 648-49, 665 P2d 1241, rev den 295 Or 541 (1983), and we do so again. Petitioners’ other arguments are adversely resolved by Mid-County Future v. Port. Metro. Area LGBC (A47426), 106 Or App 647, 809 P2d 1354 (1991).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

809 P.2d 1353, 106 Or. App. 700, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mid-county-future-alternatives-committee-v-portland-metropolitan-area-orctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack