Advocates for Effective Regulation v. City of Eugene (1999)
green
· 79 citation events
across 2 courts.
Showing the 12 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199920122026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
City of Corvallis v. State of Oregon (2020)
Cf. Advocates for Effective Regulation, 160 Or App at 313 (holding that city charter provision incorporating the definition of “hazardous substances” from future federal regulations was an improper delegation of legislative authority).
holding that city charter provision incorporating the definition of “hazardous substances” from future federal regulations was an improper delegation of legislative authority
green
Olson v. STATE MORTUARY AND CEMETERY BD. (2009)
See Advocates for Effective Regulation v. City of Eugene, 160 Or App 292, 311 , 981 P2d 368 (1999) (“A state statute, for example, cannot incorporate future federal regulations not yet promulgated at the time of enactment; the effect of doing so is to delegate the power to amend the statute to the federal regulatory authority.”).
“A state statute, for example, cannot incorporate future federal regulations not yet promulgated at the time of enactment; the effect of doing so is to delegate the power to amend the statute to the federal regulatory authority.”
green
Stamper v. Salem-Keizer School District (2004)
See Or Const, Art I, § 21; Evans v. Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, 184 Or App 733, 739 , 57 P3d 211 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 180 (2003) (“Assumingthat ORS 659A.139 requires (or can require) Oregon courts to follow federal case law decided after the Oregon statute was enacted, but see Seale et al v. McKennon, 215 Or 562, 572-73 , 336 P2d 340 (1959) (state law cannot incorporate future federal regulations), nothing in [federal law] is inconsistent with interpreting ORS 659A…
“A state statute, for example, cannot incorporate future federal regulations not yet promulgated at the time of the enactment; the effect of doing so is to delegate the power to amend the statute to the federal regulatory authority.”
green
Brause v. STATE, DEPT. OF H. & SS (2001)
Barron & A. Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1269, at 319 (Wright rev.1958)) (emphasis added). [17] 114 Wash.2d 392 , 787 P.2d 1352 (1990), vacated, City of Seattle v. First Covenant Church of Seattle, Wash., 499 U.S. 901 , 111 S.Ct. 1097 , 113 L.Ed.2d 208 (1991), judgment reinstated by First Covenant Church of Seattle v. City of Seattle, 120 Wash.2d 203 , 840 P.2d 174 (1992). [18] See id., 787 P.2d at 1355 . [19] Id. at 1356. [20] 160 Or.App. 292 , 981 P.2d 368 (1…
citations omitted
Id., 981 P.2d at 373 (citations omitted); see also Hunt v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.4th 984 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 236 , 987 P.2d 705, 716 (1999) ("[The ripeness requirement does not prevent us from resolving a concrete dispute if the consequence of a deferred decision will be lingering uncertainty in the law, especially when there is widespread public interest in the answer to a particular legal question."). .
citations omitted
green
Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson County (2000)
See Advocates for Effective Regulation, 160 Or.App. at 299 , 981 P.2d 368 .
green
Owen v. City of Portland (2020)
Homebuilders Ass’n of Metropolitan Portland v. Metro, 250 Or App 437, 443 , 281 P3d 621 (2012); see also Advocates for Effective Regulation v. City of Eugene, 160 Or App 292, 299 , 981 P2d 368 (1999) (“In this case, there is no dispute that the legislature intended state law to preempt local law to some extent.
green
City of Portland v. Bartlett (2020)
State law, however, may preempt local law enacted under a city’s home-rule authority in two ways: “First, the state might pass a law or laws expressly pre- cluding all municipal regulation in an area, such that the state ‘occupies the field’ in that area. [Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix, 357 Or 437, 454 , 353 P3d 581 (2015).] Second, state law will preempt a municipal law if the laws conflict, such that they ‘cannot operate concur- rently.’ LaGrande/Astoria, …
green
Childers Meat Co. v. City of Eugene (2019)
See Advocates I , 160 Or.
green
Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland (2015)
Second, state law will preempt a municipal law if the laws conflict, such that they “cannot operate concurrently.” LaGrande/Astoria, 281 Or at 148 ; accord Advocates for Effective Regulation v. City of Eugene, 160 Or App 292, 299 , 981 P2d 368 (1999).
green
Homebuilders Ass'n of Metropolitan Portland v. Metro (2012)
See Advocates for Effective Regulation v. City of Eugene, 160 Or App 292, 299 , 981 P2d 368 (1999) (applying statutory construction methodology to determine “the extent of the intended preemptive effect of state law”).
applying statutory construction methodology to determine “the extent of the intended preemptive effect of state law”
green
DOES 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 7 v. State (1999)
See generally Advocates for Effective Regulation v. City of Eugene, 160 Or App 292, 299 , 981 P2d 368 (1999) (in a facial challenge *548 “the question is whether the challenged enactment is valid as written, as opposed to validly applied to a given set of facts”).
in a facial challenge *548 “the question is whether the challenged enactment is valid as written, as opposed to validly applied to a given set of facts”