Rogue Valley Sewer Services v. City of Phoenix

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that courts must “begin with the assumption that the legislature does not mean to displace local civil or administrative regulation of local conditions by a statewide law unless that intention is apparent”
• declining to view legis- lative history of the 1987 amendments to ORS 221.420 and ORS 221.450 as establishing by “negative implication” that a city could not impose a fee not specifically authorized by those statutes
• identifying examples where the legislature “has expressly preempted local regulation of certain areas of law by using the word ‘preempt’ itself” and “expressed its disapproval of conflicting local laws in equally clear terms” by using explicit language
• identifying examples where the legislature “has expressly preempted local regulation of certain areas of law by using the word ‘preempt’ itself” and “expressed its disapproval of conflicting local laws in equally clear terms” by using explicit language
• “A party that challenges a home-rule city’s authority as preempted by state law is required to show that the legislature ‘unambiguously’ expressed its intent—a high bar to overcome.”
• “A party that challenges a home-rule city’s authority as preempted by state law is required to show that the leg- islature ‘unambiguously’ expressed its intent—a high bar to overcome.” (Quoting Gunderson, 352 Or at 663.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).