1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 691 P.2d
  5. 691 P.2d 94 (1984)
 

CAFFEY v. LANE COUNTY

No. TC 16-81-08893; CA A23661; SC S30264, SC 30608.

691 P.2d 94 (1984)

298 Or. 183

Michael CAFFEY, Respondent On Review, v. LANE COUNTY, R. Glenn Mittermann, Infractions Hearings Officer for Lane County, and D.M. Penfold, Custodian of Records for Lane County, Petitioners On Review.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.

Decided November 20, 1984.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John Hoag, Asst. County Counsel, Lane County, Eugene, argued the cause for petitioners on review. With him on the briefs was Cynthia L. Phillips, Asst. County Counsel, Lane County.

Douglas M. DuPriest, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the brief was Stephen A. Hutchinson and Hutchinson, Harrell, Cox, Teising & Anderson, Eugene.

Jon B. Leahy, Multnomah County Counsel, Portland, and Michael E. Judd, Asst. Clackamas County Counsel, Oregon City, filed a brief amicus curiae for Association of Oregon Counties.

LINDE, Justice.

Petitioner Lane County sought review of a decision of the Court of Appeals that the county cannot enforce its dog control ordinance by means of an adjudication of infractions by a county hearing officer. The Court of Appeals held that such adjudicatory authority was reserved by statute to the state courts. Caffey v. Lane County, 65 Or.App. 470, 671 P.2d 727 (1983),

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