Von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing and Wrestling Commission
| Decision Date | 17 November 1965 |
| Citation | 241 Or. 603,407 P.2d 853 |
| Parties | Kurt VON POPPENHEIM, Appellant, v. PORTLAND BOXING AND WRESTLING COMMISSION, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Adelbert G. Clostermann, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Emory J. Crofoot, Deputy City Atty., Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Alexander L. Brown, City Atty., Portland.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and, SLOAN, GOODWIN, HOLMAN, and LUSK, JJ.
The plaintiff applied to the Portland Boxing Commission for a license to act as a promoter of wrestling matches within the city. The commission denied the license, and the plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to compel the commission to issue him a license. The trial court dismissed the complaint and the plaintiff appeals.
The defendant commission had, at all material times, authority to appoint one or more matchmakers to perform whatever services might be necessary in supplying Portland audiences with boxing matches. ORS 463.140. The licensing of wrestling matches was mentioned only incidentally. See ORS 463.120. There was, prior to this year, no statutory provision for either the appointment or the licensing of wrestling promoters or matchmakers.
After this suit was dismissed in the trial court, Oregon Laws 1965, ch. 200, became effective.
The appropriate section, ORS 463.140(1), as amended, reads:
The foregoing statute appears to vest in the commission a wide discretion in the appointment of matchmakers. The plaintiff's application to this court for mandatory relief must necessarily be governed by the law as it exists at this time.
Construed under the present law, the plaintiff's complaint amounts to nothing more than the assertion that he sought employment as a matchmaker and was not given such employment. He then draws a number of legal conclusions, one of which is expressed in a recital that, in declining to engage his services, the commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
For all that appears in the complaint, the commission treated the plaintiff as it would any other applicant for a job as a wrestling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mark v. DDFW
...been woefully inadequate. Perfection is not required; reasonable enforcement efforts are. 7. See, e.g., Von Poppenheim v. Port. Boxing Com., 241 Or. 603, 605, 407 P.2d 853 (1965); State ex rel. v. Newbry et al., 189 Or. 691, 222 P.2d 737 (1950); Hyland v. City of Eugene, 179 Or. 567, 173 P.......
-
State v. Mack
... ... Road and east on Belt-line until the van took the Portland/I--5 exit northbound ... 'At 3:30 p.m. on February 21, ... ...
-
Von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Com'n
...pleadings after considering an original and two amended complaints. On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.1 241 Or. 603, 407 P.2d 853 (1965). Two months later von Poppenheim initiated the present action in the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon. The thrus......
-
State v. McDonald
... ... Oscar D. Howlett, Portland", argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant ... \xC2" ... ...