1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 662 P.2d
  5. 662 P.2d 356 (1983)
 

OREGON SHORES v. OREGON FISH AND WILDLIFE

CA A25851.

662 P.2d 356 (1983)

OREGON SHORES Conservation Coalition, an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation; Oregon Environmental Council, an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation; Audubon Society of Portland, an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation; Bill Bess; Lavern K. Holstad; Alfred Krampert; Jim Lore; Michael, Sally, Tyler and Arnadene Vanebo; Daniel S. Pickthorn; and Jeff Gilligen, Petitioners, v. OREGON FISH AND WILDLIFE Commission and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Respondents, and Bob Olson, Cecil Harris, and Sam Hayes, Intervenors-Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted February 2, 1983.

Reconsideration Denied May 27, 1983.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Steven R. Schell, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, Audubon Society of Portland, Bill Bess, Lavern K. Holstad, Alfred Krampert, Jim Lore, Michael, Sally, Tyler and Arnadene Vanebo, Daniel Pickthorn and Jeff Gilligen. With him on brief were Black, Helterline, Beck & Rappleyea, and James S. Coon, Portland.

James S. Coon, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner Oregon Environmental Council. With him on brief were Steven R. Schell, and Black, Helterline, Beck & Rappleyea, Portland.

Mary J. Deits, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondents. With her on brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Stanton F. Long, Deputy Atty. Gen., and William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., Salem.

David A. Rhoten, Salem, argued the cause for intervenors-respondents. With him on brief was Rhoten, Rhoten & Speerstra, Salem.

Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and VAN HOOMISSEN and NEWMAN, JJ.

RICHARDSON, Presiding Judge.

Petitioners appeal from the order of the Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) granting a permit to three oyster growers, the intervenors-respondents here, to treat certain leased oyster beds in Tillamook Bay with Sevin 80 Carbaryl insecticide (Sevin). ORS 509.140. Petitioners contend: (1) the Commission failed to comply with the Special Local Needs Registration and Labeling requirements for the use of Sevin; (2) the order violates...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases