Opinion

Portland v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co.

  • 80 Or. 271
  • 156 P. 1058
  • 1916 Ore. LEXIS 48
Court
Oregon Supreme Court
Filed
Apr 25, 1916
Status
Published
Author
Burnett
On the bench
Burnett, Eakin, Harris, Moore
Cited by
31 cases

city lacked authority to enact ordinance imposing tax on gross receipts of corporations selling electricity

How later courts described this case

  • city lacked authority to enact ordinance imposing tax on gross receipts of corporations selling electricity
  • “if it can be said that the franchise is assessed at all”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Mr. Justice Burnett

delivered the following dissenting opinion:

As against the demurrer to the answer in this case, Mr. Justice Harris has pointed out very clearly that it is a good defense to say that the amount of the occupation tax in question is so great as to be confiscatory, and hence that the court will enjoin its collection. On this ground I concur in the result of the opinion, but withhold my assent to the conclusion that an ordinance of the hind is not under any circumstances a permissible exercise of the authority conferred upon, the council by subdivision 21 of Section 73 of the charter.

Mr. Chief Justice Moore concurs in this opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.