Puro v. Wickiup Water District

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Puro v. Wickiup Water District

558 P.2d 352, 27 Or. App. 789, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1522

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 20, 1976

DocketNo. CC75-395, CA 5898

StatusPublished

This text of 558 P.2d 352 (Puro v. Wickiup Water District) 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

Puro v. Wickiup Water District, 558 P.2d 352, 27 Or. App. 789, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1522 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is on all fours with Barendse v. Knappa Water Assn., 260 Or 356, 490 P2d 990 (1971), except that here the defendant water district is a municipal corporation and its rules and regulations provide for a minimum water rate of $4 per month "for each additional family or householder served” within bungalow courts and auto trailer camps. As in Barendse, defendant in this case did not offer evidence tending to justify charging a higher rate to one class of users than it charges to other classes of users. See also, Kliks et al v. Dalles City et al, 216 Or 160, 335 P2d 366 (1959). Accordingly the challenged classification and charge must likewise be set aside as unauthorized and discriminatory. Barendse v. Knappa Water Assn., supra.

Defendant also assigns as error the introduction of hearsay over objection. We can find no basis for this assignment of error. The testimony quoted by defendant in its brief in support of this assignment contains no extra-judicial statement.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is on all fours with Barendse v. Knappa Water Assn., 260 Or 356, 490 P2d 990 (1971), except that here the defendant water district is a municipal corporation and its rules and regulations provide for a minimum water rate of $4 per month "for each additional family or householder served” within bungalow courts and auto trailer camps. As in Barendse, defendant in this case did not offer evidence tending to justify charging a higher rate to one class of users than it charges to other classes of users. See also, Kliks et al v. Dalles City et al, 216 Or 160, 335 P2d 366 (1959). Accordingly the challenged classification and charge must likewise be set aside as unauthorized and discriminatory. Barendse v. Knappa Water Assn., supra.

Defendant also assigns as error the introduction of hearsay over objection. We can find no basis for this assignment of error. The testimony quoted by defendant in its brief in support of this assignment contains no extra-judicial statement.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

558 P.2d 352, 27 Or. App. 789, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puro-v-wickiup-water-district-orctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack