Nicoll v. City of Eugene, 16-80-08132
Decision Date | 25 June 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 16-80-08132,16-80-08132 |
Citation | 632 P.2d 502,53 Or.App. 528 |
Parties | Burton NICOLL, Appellant, v. The CITY OF EUGENE, a municipal corporation, acting by and through the Eugene Water & Electric Board, Respondent. ; CA 19745. . On Respondent's Petition for Reconsideration |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Windsor Calkins, and Calkins & Calkins, Eugene, for petition.
Before RICHARDSON, P. J., and THORNTON and VAN HOOMISSEN, JJ.
Defendant City of Eugene petitions for reconsideration of our opinion at 52 Or.App. 379, 628 P.2d 1213 (1981), and contends that the following footnote in the opinion is inaccurate and misleading:
52 Or.App. at 383, n. 1, 628 P.2d 1213.
The city argues that benefits under its residential energy conservation plan are available to corporations and other nonnatural entities as well as to natural persons who own or occupy residential buildings. The city is concerned that the last sentence in our footnote suggests otherwise and could lead to subsequent confusion and litigation. We agree with the city that the footnote is confusingly worded and could be misread in the way the city indicates.
We did not intend to imply that the plan does not benefit incorporated owners of residential property, or that the plan is not clear in that regard. The only point the footnote was intended to make is that, if the plan does benefit companies, corporations or associations as well as natural persons, the holding in Miles v. City of Eugene, 252 Or. 528, 451 P.2d 59 (1969), does not in itself make Art. XI, § 9 inapplicable to the plan. Because we held for other reasons that the plan does not violate Art. XI, § 9, footnote 1 is superfluous and we modify our opinion by deleting it.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion adhered to as modified.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Portland v. Ayers
...immunities grounds. See, e.g., Nicoll v. City of Eugene, 52 Or.App. 379, 384-85, 628 P.2d 1213, modified on unrelated grounds, 53 Or.App. 528, 632 P.2d 502 (1981). However, the more fundamental defect in his argument is its mistaken premise that the city has classified different persons as ......
-
Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union v. Port of Portland
...revenues or do not serve a 'public purpose.'" Nicoll v. City of Eugene, 52 Or. App. 379, 383, adhered to as mod. on reconsideration, 53 Or. App. 528 (1981) (citing Carruthers v. Port of Astoria, 249 Or. 329, (1968)). "When government engages in public services or activities that generate re......
- Nicoll v. City of Eugene, 16-80-08132
-
Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union v. Port of Portland
...revenues or do not serve a 'public purpose.'" Nicoll v. City of Eugene, 52 Or. App. 379, 383, adhered to as mod. on reconsideration, 53 Or. App. 528 (1981) (citing Carruthers, 249 Or. at 331). "When government engages in public services or activities that generate revenues other than taxes,......