# Leathers v. City of Burns

> Oregon Supreme Court · September 18, 1968 · 251 Or. 206

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9536915

## Case

- **Full name:** LEATHERS, Respondent, v. CITY OF BURNS, Appellant
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 18, 1968
- **Citations:** 251 Or. 206; 444 P.2d 1010; 1968 Ore. LEXIS 443
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Goodwin
- **Judges:** Perry, O'Connell, Goodwin, Denecke, Holman, Lusk
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9536915

## Opinion text

GOODWIN, J.,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
While I concur fully in the majority opinion with respect to Ordinance No. 350, I would also reverse as to Ordinance No. 349. The majority opinion reveals that the question of the constitutionality of No. 349 is a close one. I would resolve that doubt in favor of the city, not because the city’s reasons for the ordinance are necessarily the more convincing, but because the *226 question is essentially a matter of legislative judgment and one on which reasonable men can differ.
To my mind, the most convincing reason for staying our hand with reference to Ordinance No. 349 is that the ordinance was intended to be an integral part of a legislative package. With No. 349 on the books, No. 350 may be more easily enforced. Indeed, if one could, read the minds of the drafters of such legislation, it is éntirely possible that their principal reason for enacting. Ño. 349 was to make Ño. 350 more or less self-enforcing and thus to eliminate a potential enforcer ment problem. This would clearly be a legitimate legislative purpose.
For the foregoing reasons I dissent from the part of the decision which' holds Ordinance No. 349 .to be unconstitutional.
O’Connell, J., joins in this dissenting and. concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9536915. Public record. Not legal advice.