24 Or. App. 571 - Allison v. Washington County’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably Carter v. Lehi City (2012), Convention Center Referendum Committee v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics (1981)
2 district · 23 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Bi-Metallic Investment Company v. State Board of Equalization · National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Federal Power Commission · 13 Cal. 3d 205 - San Diego Building Contractors Ass'n v. City Council · Glass v. Smith · Fasano v. Board of County Com'rs of Washington Cty.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`Action is legislative when it affects a large area consisting of many parcels of property in disparate ownership... . Conversely, action is considered quasi-judicial when it applies a general rule to a specific interest, such as a zoning change affecting a single piece of property, a variance, or a conditional use permit.' Allison v. Washington County [ 24 Or. App. 571 ] 548 P.2d 188, 190-91 (Or. App. 1976)." (Quoting from Fasano v. Board of County Comm'rs, 264 Or. 574 , 507 P.2d 23 (Or. 1973)). Ante at 1077, n. 4.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"ORS 203.035 (which became law via Oregon Laws 1973, ch. 282) obliterates most distinctions between the powers of general law counties and home rule counties. Home rule counties derive their legislative power from Art. VI, s[ection] 10 of the Oregon Constitution and from their individual charters. Art. VI, s[ection] 10 grants home rule counties authority `over matters of county concern.' General law counties derive their legislative power from specific statutory grants and from the broad general [statutory] grant in ORS 203.035 of authority `over matters of county concern.' General grants of power to counties convey exactly that broad grant articulated therein, except that which is preempted by state law. Schmidt v. Masters, 7 Or.App. 421, 429 , 490 P.2d 1029 (1971), [ rev. den. ] (1972). Therefore, in the absence of state preemption or a limiting charter provision, home rule and general law counties have the same legislative authority." Allison, 24 Or.App. at 581 , 548 P.2d 188 (footnote omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"(1) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, the governing body or the electors of a county may by ordinance exercise authority within the county over matters of county concern, to the fullest extent allowed by Constitutions and laws of the United States and of this state, as fully as if each particular power comprised in that general authority were specifically listed in ORS 203.030 to 203.075. "(2) The power granted by this section is in addition to other grants of power to counties, shall not be construed to limit or qualify any such grant and shall be liberally construed, to the end that counties have all powers over matters of county concern that it is possible for them to have under the Constitutions and laws of the United States and of this state."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.