Chapter 221

221.040

NOTES OF DECISIONS

In determining the boundaries of a city the county commissioners should exercise an independent legislative judgment under the guidelines of this section. Millersburg Dev. Corp. v. Mullen, 14 Or App 614, 514 P2d 367 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

County act of fixing date for incorporation election under this section is final decision for purposes of land use review procedure. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 299 Or 344, 703 P2d 207 (1985)

221.160

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Application of Ore. Const. Art. II, §14a to election of city officers of all cities, (1973) Vol 36, p 697

221.200

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Application of Ore. Const. Art. II, §14a to election of city officers of all cities, (1973) Vol 36, p 697

221.315

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where county population exceeds 300,000, provisions of ORS 8.650 make agreement between city and county unnecessary. City of Portland v. Smith, 75 Or App 38, 705 P2d 205 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

221.333

(formerly 221.340)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: City establishment of own procedure for collection of fines for violation of city parking ordinances, (1984) Vol 44, p 67

221.336 to 221.390

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Person who is convicted in municipal court and appeals that conviction to circuit court, pursuant to these sections, may appeal adverse decision of circuit court to Court of Appeals only if case involves constitutionality of ordinance under which defendant was convicted. City of Lincoln City v. Pennington, 91 Or App 713, 756 P2d 75 (1988)

221.339

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where municipal court that is not court of record prosecutes misdemeanor offense, court is functioning as justice court. City of Milton-Freewater v. Ashley, 214 Or App 526, 166 P3d 587 (2007)

221.340

See annotations under ORS 221.333.

221.349

See annotations under ORS 221.354.

221.350

See annotations under ORS 221.359.

221.354

(formerly 221.349)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Defendant who was charged with keeping a vicious dog in violation of a city ordinance was held not entitled to a jury trial. Behnke v. Jordan, 275 Or 199, 550 P2d 736 (1976)

221.359

(formerly 221.350)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

On appeal to circuit court from municipal court’s contempt order under [former] ORS 33.030, defendant was entitled to trial on contested findings contained in order. City of Klamath Falls v. Bailey, 43 Or App 331, 602 P2d 1107 (1979)

221.360

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Scope of appellate court review of district court convictions of ordinance violations is equivalent to that available to persons appealing from district court convictions of state offenses. City of Portland v. Poindexter, 38 Or App 551, 590 P2d 781 (1979)

Provisions of this section, which limit appeals from circuit review of municipal court convictions to questions of constitutionality of ordinances or charter provisions, do not violate United States or Oregon Constitutions. City of Klamath Falls v. Winters, 289 Or 757, 619 P2d 217 (1980)

Court of Appeals has jurisdiction where defendant challenges provision that is inseparable from provision under which defendant was convicted. City of Eugene v. Miller, 119 Or App 293, 851 P2d 1142 (1993), aff’d on other grounds, 318 Or 480, 871 P2d 454 (1994)

For purposes of right to appeal, issue as to constitutionality of charter provision or ordinance may be raised as either facial or as-applied challenge. City of Eugene v. Lincoln, 183 Or App 36, 50 P3d 1253 (2002)

Limitation on scope of decision by appellate court regarding constitutional issue applies only to municipal court conviction for which city ordinance otherwise prohibits appeal. City of Eugene v. Lincoln, 183 Or App 36, 50 P3d 1253 (2002)

Once appellant meets prerequisite of raising cognizable facial or as-applied challenge to constitutionality of ordinance, appellate court may address both constitutional and nonconstitutional contentions. City of Lowell v. Wilson, 197 Or App 291, 105 P3d 856 (2005), Sup Ct review denied

COMPLETED CITATIONS: Portland v. Olson, 4 Or App 380, 481 P2d 641 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

221.390

NOTES OF DECISIONS

In de novo appeals in circuit court arising from traffic offense convictions in municipal court in which arrest or complaint was made by a city policeman, the county clerk shall remit one-half of the fine to the city. City of St. Helens v. Columbia County, 21 Or App 128, 533 P2d 1401 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

221.410

NOTES OF DECISIONS

State substantive policy may be phrased as prohibition against local regulation without further elaboration or direction. deParrie v. State of Oregon, 133 Or App 613, 893 P2d 541 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

221.420

NOTES OF DECISIONS

The scope of review in disputes between parties to a franchise is the same as for any contract, and is not limited to a determination that the municipality acted reasonably and in good faith for the public interest. Rose City Transit Co. v. Portland, 18 Or App 369, 525 P2d 325 (1974), aff’d as modified 271 Or 588, 533 P2d 339 (1975)

A franchise is not a mere license, but a contract between a municipality and franchisee. Rose City Transit Co. v. Portland, 18 Or App 369, 525 P2d 325 (1974), aff’d as modified 271 Or 588, 533 P2d 339 (1975)

City may provide utility services in territory allocated to another provider pursuant to ORS 758.400 to 758.475 if it exercises authority under this section to exclude or eject provider from territory, however, city’s mere placement of utility facilities and provision of services in territory is not exercise of that authority and is violation of allocation statutes in absence of formal action by city to eject or exclude provider. PacifiCorp v. City of Ashland, 89 Or App 366, 749 P2d 1189 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

City’s statutory authority to exclude or eject public utility from public property applies only to privately owned public utilities. Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald People’s Utility District, 191 Or App 536, 84 P3d 167 (2004), aff’d 339 Or 631, 125 P3d 740 (2005)

“Public utility” does not include utility owned by city, municipal corporation or quasi-municipal corporation. Springfield Utility Board v. Emerald People’s Utility District, 191 Or App 536, 84 P3d 167 (2004), aff’d 339 Or 631, 125 P3d 740 (2005)

221.480 to 221.500

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: City’s authority to spend more than $10,000 in any given year for advertising, publicity or tourist promotion, (1979) Vol 40, p 40

221.515

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Authorization for municipal privilege tax on telecommunications carriers using rights of way does not prohibit municipality from imposing similar tax on entities exempt from definition of telecommunications carrier. AT&T Communications v. City of Eugene, 177 Or App 379, 35 P3d 1029 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Municipality may impose tax for use of public streets, alleys and highways on telecommunications carrier revenues generated from services other than exchange access services. US West Communications v. City of Eugene, 336 Or 181, 81 P3d 702 (2003)

221.770

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Apportionment and quarterly payment of liquor revenues to cities, (1977) Vol 38, p 1025; effect of inadvertent omission of brackets on mathematical formula of this section, (1977) Vol 38, p 1525; distribution formula for Oregon Liquor Control Commission Account moneys, (1978) Vol 38, p 2138; distribution of state moneys when all land within city is owned by private party, (1983) Vol 44, p 20

221.905

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Contract providing that city will pay police chief amount equal to fines and bail forfeitures collected by municipal court, (1980) Vol 40, p 247

221.924

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: City authority to construct speed bumps to control vehicle speed, (1975) Vol 37, p 653

221.926

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Local government authority to force evacuation of fire-threatened areas, (1996) Vol 48, p 27