Anthony v. Veatch
Decision Date | 29 August 1950 |
Citation | 189 Or. 462,221 P.2d 575 |
Parties | ANTHONY et al. v. VEATCH et al. (COLUMBIA RIVER FISHERMEN'S PROTECTIVE UNION et al., Intervenors). |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Ryan & Pelay, of Portland, for petition.
George Neuner, Attorney General, and Cecil Quesseth, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents and cross-appellants, contra.
Anderson & Franklin, of Portland, for intervenors-respondents and cross-appellants, contra.
Before LUSK, C. J., and BRAND, BELT, ROSSMAN, HAY and LATOURETTE, JJ.
The plaintiffs, who are appellants and cross-respondents, have filed a petition for rehearing in this case based upon the asserted grounds (1) that the court erred in holding that there was evidence that fish traps take not only salmon but smaller fish which are usually not taken in gill-netting operations, and (2) that we erred in holding that the evidence does not conclusively show that the initiative act fails to meet the test of reasonableness, and that, therefore, the presumption in favor of reasonableness should prevail.
Although no brief accompanied the petition, we have re-examined our opinion in these respects, and are satisfied that the petition is not well founded. It is therefore denied.
In our opinion in this case we said that the cause would be remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent therewith. Upon further consideration we have concluded, in the state of the record, that a remand for further proceedings would be inappropriate. The cause will therefore be remanded with directions that it be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Federal Power Commission v. State of Oregon
...12 Stat. 963, 964. Oregon has recognized that it is bound by this Treaty. Anthony v. Veatch, 189 Or. 462, 483—485, 220 P.2d 493, 502—503, 221 P.2d 575. See also, United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089. Indian Power Site Reserve No. 2 was created November 1, 1910,......
-
State v. Buck
...are in irreconcilable conflict, then the earlier must yield to the later by implied repeal. Anthony v. Veatch, 189 Or. 462, 220 P.2d 493, 221 P.2d 575, syl. 14; Rorick v. Dalles City, 140 Or. 342, 12 P.2d 762. If a later act covers the whole subject of the first, and embraces new provisions......
-
Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. U.S. Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Wash.
... ... Anthony v. Veatch, 189 Or. 462, 474-75, 486-87, 220 P.2d 493, 498-99, 503-04, rehearing denied, 189 Or. 504, 221 P.2d 575 (1950); Columbia River Fishermen's ... ...
-
State ex rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer
...State v. Shumway, 291 Or. 153, 160, 630 P.2d 796 (1981). See also Anthony et al. v. Veatch et al., 189 Or. 462, 481, 220 P.2d 493, 221 P.2d 575 (1950) ("If earlier and later statutes are in irreconcilable conflict, then the earlier must yield to the later by implied repeal." (citations omit......