State v. Pyle

How courts have described this case

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

• “The mere fact that the principal purpose of the legislation was to preserve the highways does not mean that the legislature may not also have had other considerations in mind.”
• “The mere fact that the principal purpose of the legislation was to preserve the highways does not mean that the legislature may not also have had other considerations in mind.”
• “Legislation usually is the product of the adjustment of various inter- ests.”
• “Legislation usually is the product of the adjustment of various inter- ests.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Sterling H. Nelson & Sons, Inc. v. Bender
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1974-03-29· cited 14×
• State v. Amyot
  Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1979-08-20· cited 11×
• Scales v. Spencer
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1967-02-23· cited 9×
• Weinberger v. Rall
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1973-06-01· cited 5×
• Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. v. City of Portland
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2007-08-22· cited 3×
• Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2025-07-24· cited 3×
• State v. Sands
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 1979-06-27· cited 2×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1955-05-09· cited 2,938×
• Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers
  Supreme Court· 1959-02-24· cited 747×
• Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York
  Supreme Court· 1949-01-31· cited 673×
• Mallatt v. LUIHN
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1956-03-07· cited 56×
• Plummer v. Donald M. Drake Co.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1958-01-15· cited 30×
• Kliks v. Dalles City
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1959-02-11· cited 22×