State v. Hayworth

8 Citing cases

  1. Cook v. Corbett

    251 Or. 263 (Or. 1968)   Cited 13 times
    Overturning a primary nominating election because the winning candidate made false statements in the course of the campaign

    Corbett argues that in an election contest it is essential that the contestant allege and prove that the violation affected the result of the election. She relies on Skoko v. Clackamas R.F.P. Dist. No. 71, 234 Or. 214, 380 P.2d 809 (1963); Witham v. McNutt, 186 Or. 668, 208 P.2d 459 (1949); State v. Hayworth, 152 Or. 416, 53 P.2d 1048 (1936); Re Application of Riggs et al, 105 Or. 531, 207 P. 175, 1005, 210 P. 217 (1922); Whitney v. Blackburn, 17 Or. 564, 21 P. 874 (1889). It is sufficient to say that the cases relied on did not involve the Corrupt Practices Act and are not in point.

  2. Corvallis Sand Gravel v. Land Board

    250 Or. 319 (Or. 1968)   Cited 29 times
    Explaining that state holds title to public trust resources but title is held "not in a proprietary capacity, but in its sovereign capacity, that is to say, as trustee for the public"

    In two suits brought by the state to cancel deeds to swampland issued by it, the defense of laches was sustained: State v. Warner Valley Stock Co., 56 Or. 283, 106 P. 780, 108 P. 861; State of Oregon v. Hyde, 88 Or. 1, 169 P. 757, 171 P. 582, Ann Cas 1918E 688, of which more later. There were similar holdings in quo warranto actions: State ex rel. Security Savings Trust Co. v. School District No. 9, supra; State ex rel. Hallgarth v. School District No. 23, 179 Or. 441, 172 P.2d 655; State ex rel. Teegarden v. Union High School, 152 Or. 412, 53 P.2d 1047; State ex rel. Weatherford v. Hayworth, 152 Or. 416, 53 P.2d 1048. In these cases the writs were sued out by private relators and it should be noted that in State ex rel. Security Savings Trust Co. v. School District No. 9 the court called attention ( 148 Or at 286) to the following statement from O'Leary v. Reiner, 9 NJ Misc 950, 156 A. 120:

  3. Finucane v. Village of Hayden

    86 Idaho 199 (Idaho 1963)   Cited 24 times

    Property owners are estopped by reason of continued acquiescence to question directly the validity of the extension of the boundaries of a municipality. 1 McQuillin-Municipal Corporations, second edition, p. 844; 101 A.L.R. 581; Black v. Brinkley, 64 Ark. 372, 15 S.W. 1030; Village of Lynbrook v. Cadoo, 252 N.Y. 308, 169 N.E. 394; State ex rel. Landis v. City of Coral Gables, 120 Fla. 492, 163 So. 308, 101 A.L.R. 578; State ex rel. Hallgarth v. School District No. 23, 179 Or. 441, 172 P.2d 655; State ex rel. Teegarden v. Union High School Dist. No. 1, 152 Or. 412, 53 P.2d 1047; State ex rel. Weatherford v. Hayworth, 152 Or. 416, 53 P.2d 1048. Payment of taxes constitutes acquiescence amounting to estoppel and laches.

  4. Witham v. McNutt

    208 P.2d 459 (Or. 1949)   Cited 14 times
    In Witham v. McNutt, 186 Or. 668, 208 P.2d 459, taxpayers brought a suit to enjoin public officials from certifying an annexation to the city of Eugene. Under the statute such certificate was required before the annexation would be effected.

    The election was held valid. In State ex rel. Weatherford v. Hayworth et al., 152 Or. 416, 53 P.2d 1048, the validity of a union high school district election was tested by quo warranto. The election was held pursuant to Oregon Code 1930, § 35-3721.

  5. State ex Rel. v. School District No. 23

    172 P.2d 655 (Or. 1946)   Cited 10 times
    Dismissing challenge to defective school consolidation order on grounds of laches and stating that three elections — one for school district directors, another ratifying district's selection of school site, and a third approving the sale of bonds — "were, in effect, successive ratifications by the voters of the consolidation order"

    State ex rel. v. School District No. 9 was a quo warranto action in which the relator sought a judgment declaring that the defendant school district was illegal and void. State ex rel. v. Union High School, 152 Or. 412, 53 P.2d 1047, and State ex rel. Weatherford v. Hayworth, 152 Or. 416, 53 P.2d 1048, are two recent instances in which this court held that laches bars the state, when it is acting upon the relation of a private party, from challenging the validity of a school district. As has been frequently stated, the passage of time is not the only element which determines whether laches has occurred. It is the cumulation of events, especially those which bring home notice to the plaintiff and prejudice the defendant, which determines whether laches has occurred.

  6. School District v. Gleason

    178 Or. 577 (Or. 1946)   Cited 2 times

    It is conceded by both parties that there is no inherent reserved power in the people to hold an election and that to be legal and effective an election must be conducted in accordance with and pursuant to a valid statute authorizing it. State ex rel v. Simon, 20 Or. 365, 26 P. 170; State ex rel v. Kozer, 115 Or. 638, 239 P. 805; Kneeland v. Multnomah Co., 139 Or. 356, 10 P.2d 342; State ex rel v. Hoss, 143 Or. 383, 22 P.2d 883; State ex rel v. Hayworth, 152 Or. 416, 53 P.2d 1048. Defendant contends that there is no statute authorizing the submission of the proposed special tax levy to the electorate or the holding of an election thereon.

  7. Howell v. Bain

    176 Or. 187 (Or. 1945)   Cited 5 times

    Defendant Bain received a plurality of the votes. We agree that an election, in order to be valid, must be authorized by law (State v. Hayworth, 152 Or. 416, 53 P.2d 1048; State ex rel. v. Hoss, 143 Or. 383, 22 P.2d 883; State ex rel. v. Kozer, 115 Or. 638, 239 P. 805) and that there must be some constitutional or statutory authority for filling a vacancy in office notwithstanding it is an elective one: 42 Am.Jur. 975, Public Officers, § 130. In other words, an election to fill a vacancy is of no effect where there is no provision in law for it.

  8. McBee v. School Dist. No. 48

    96 P.2d 207 (Or. 1939)   Cited 5 times

    "The following are the rules for construing the descriptive parts of a conveyance of real property, when the construction is doubtful, and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it: 1. Where there are certain definite and ascertained particulars in the description, the addition of others, which are indefinite, unknown, or false, does not frustrate the conveyance, but it is to be construed by such particulars, if they constitute a sufficient description to ascertain its application; 2. * * *" From State ex rel. Weatherford v. Hayworth, 152 Or. 416, 53 P.2d 1048, we quote: "Thus, it seems the last call was omitted in the description.