# Anthony v. Veatch

> Oregon Supreme Court · June 30, 1950 · 189 Or. 462

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9624006

## Case

- **Full name:** ANTHONY Et Al. v. VEATCH Et Al. COLUMBIA RIVER FISHERMEN’S PROTECTIVE UNION Et Al., Intervenors
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 30, 1950
- **Citations:** 189 Or. 462; 221 P.2d 575; 220 P.2d 493; 1950 Ore. LEXIS 206
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Hay
- **Judges:** Lusk, Brand, Belt, Boss-Man, Hay, Latourette, Rossman, Hat
- **Cited by:** 54 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/9624006

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that the state may regulate the capture of wildlife “either in the exercise of its police power, or in its sovereign capacity in trust for its people”

## Opinion text

On Petition eor Rehearing
Before Lusk, Chief Justice, and Brand, Belt, * Rossman, Hat, and Latourette, Justices.
Denied.
*505 HAY, J.
The plaintiffs, who are appellants and cross respondents, have filed a petition for rehearing in this case based upon the asserted grounds (1) that the court erred in holding that there was evidence that fish traps take not only salmon but smaller fish which are usually not taken in gill-netting operations, and, (2) that we erred in holding that the evidence does not conclusively show that the initiative act fails to meet the test of reasonableness, and that, therefore, the presumption in favor of reasonableness should prevail.
Although no brief accompanied the petition, we have re-examined our opinion in these respects, and are satisfied that the petition is not well-founded. It is therefore denied.
In our opinion in this case we said that the cause would be remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent therewith. Upon further consideration we have concluded, in the state of the record, that a remand for further proceedings would be inappropriate. The cause will therefore be remanded with directions that it be dismissed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9624006. Public record. Not legal advice.