holding that the standards set out in statute were “sufficiently definite to permit judicial inquiry into the validity of defendant’s appointment as one of the two consumer representatives on the State Board of Agriculture”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the standards set out in statute were “sufficiently definite to permit judicial inquiry into the validity of defendant’s appointment as one of the two consumer representatives on the State Board of Agriculture”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result.
In enacting ORS 561.130 the legislature intended to identify two distinct interest groups whose representatives would establish policy for the Department of Agriculture, i.e., agricultural producers and consumer representatives. Defendant so patently falls within the former group that for us to hold she may serve in a position reserved for the latter is to ascribe to the legislature an intention to make meaningless any distinction between the groups. The legislature could not have intended such a result.