Dunn v. Gray
| Decision Date | 17 June 1964 |
| Parties | Robert D. DUNN, Delbert J. Goode, Emery E. Hendrickson, Emery E. Hendrickson, Jr., Orville B. Kliewer, Emanuel Kniss, Dale W. Neliton, Loren F. Thackery, and Gerald E. Willis, dba Capital City Garbage Service, Appellants, v. Richard GRAY, Treasurer of the City of Salem, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Richard F. May, Woodburn, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Eichsteadt, Gutzler, May & Bolland, Woodburn.
William J. Juza, Asst. City Atty., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Chris J. Kowitz, City Atty., Salem.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and ROSSMAN, PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN and DENECKE, JJ.
Plaintiffs filed with defendant, the City Treasurer of Salem, an application for a license to collect garbage within the city. The application was refused. For several years the city governing body had adopted the policy of granting a monopoly for that purpose within the city. Plaintiffs then brought this mandamus proceeding to compel the city to issue a license. The trial court refused the writ and plaintiffs appeal.
The case was submitted to the court upon stipulated facts. These facts disclosed that the ordinance previously adopted by the city had granted the exclusive franchise to collect garbage to the Sanitary Service Company, Inc., for a period of 10 years. A general provision in the city charter provided that the city could not enter into a contract for a period of longer duration than 5 years. The trial court thereupon concluded that the ordinance extending the franchise for more than 5 years was invalid as a violation of the charter. The court then entered an 'interlocutory' order which allowed the city a period of 60 days in which to correct the ordinance. The city did so and the court then entered an order denying a preemptory writ.
A city has the unquestioned power to grant an exclusive license or franchise for the purpose of collecting and disposing of garbage. Spencer et al. v. City of Medford, et al., 1929, 129 Or. 333, 276 P. 1114, 7 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3rd ed. 1949) § 24.251. For a more recent review of the authorities see Strub v. Village of Deerfield, 1960, 19 Ill.2d 401, 167 N.E.2d 178, 83 A.L.R.2d 795.
Plaintiffs advance various arguments in attempt to distinguish the instant case from the authorities cited. The arguments are without merit.
The only question in the case at all is the right of the court to postpone final decision to give the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schmidt v. Masters
...the municipal thumb without employing a large number of watchers or supervisors.' 129 Or. at 341, 276 P. at 1116. In Dunn v. Gray, 238 Or. 71, 392 P.2d 1018 (1964), an exclusive sanitary service franchise had been granted by the City of Salem and such action was under challenge. Citing Spen......
-
Holland, Matter of, s. 75-100
...Gustafson, 285 Or. 307, 310, 590 P.2d 729 (1979); Johnston v. The Oregon Bank, 285 Or. 423, 426, 591 P.2d 746 (1979); Dunn v. Gray, 238 Or. 71, 73, 392 P.2d 1018 (1964). The judicial action sought in this proceeding is termination of the parent-child relationship. The rights of the mother t......
-
City of Tigard v. Werner
... ... The city has 'unquestioned power to grant an exclusive license or franchise for the purpose of collecting and disposing of garbage.' Dunn v. Gray, 238 Or. 71, 392 P.2d 1018 (1964); Spencer v. City of Medford,[15 Or.App. 338] 129 Or. 333, 276 P. 1114 (1929); Schmidt v. Masters, supra 7 ... ...