I could use this case to teach an entire course on Oregon legal research to lawyers, law students, legislators, and self-represented litigants:
City of Damascus v. Henry R. Brown, Jr. (A156920)
“ARMSTRONG, P. J.
This case concerns the constitutionality of a bill passed by the 2014 Oregon Legislative Assembly, House Bill (HB) 4029, which permits landowners with property located on the boundary of the City of Damascus to withdraw that property from the jurisdiction of the city….
After consolidating the cases, we requested that the parties also address whether the petitions present us with a justiciable controversy, including whether petitioners have standing, whether the petitions are moot, and whether the parties are adverse….
On the merits of the petitions in GDI and Patton, we conclude that HB 4029 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to private individuals because the legislation delegates to interested landowners the authority to determine the city’s boundary and to find the facts necessary to make that determination without imposing any meaningful procedural safeguards on the landowners’ fact-finding function. Accordingly, we reverse the GDI and Patton withdrawals….”
City of Damascus v. Henry R. Brown, Jr. (A156920 – Agency/Board/Other)
In A156922 and A156923, reversed on cross-petition; in A156920, A156921, A156922, A156923, A156963, A156964, A156982, A156983, A156984, A157037, A157042, A157043, A157044, A157045, A157046, A157047, A157130, A157166, A157167, A157345, A157455, A157456, A157457, petition dismissed.