Case Name: MID-COUNTY FUTURE ALTERNATIVES COMMITTEE, Peter M. Smith and Dorothy Smith, Petitioners, v. PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION and City of Gresham, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1991-04-17
Citations: 106 Or. App. 700
Docket Number: 2470, 2471, 2472, 2473, 2479, 2590; CA A47810; A47811, A47812, A47813, A48435, A60681
Parties: MID-COUNTY FUTURE ALTERNATIVES COMMITTEE, Peter M. Smith and Dorothy Smith, Petitioners, v. PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION and City of Gresham, Respondents.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Riggs, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 106
Pages: 700–701

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 18,
affirmed April 17, 1991
MID-COUNTY FUTURE ALTERNATIVES COMMITTEE, Peter M. Smith and Dorothy Smith, Petitioners, v. PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION and City of Gresham, Respondents.
(2470, 2471, 2472, 2473, 2479, 2590; CA A47810 (Control) A47811, A47812, A47813, A48435, A60681)
(Cases Consolidated)
809 P2d 1353
Gregory W. Byrne, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners. On the briefs was George E. Birnie, Portland.
Michael D. Reynolds, Assistant Solicitor General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Linda DeVries Grimms, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
Matthew R. Baines, Assistant City Attorney, Gresham, argued the cause for respondent City of Gresham. With him on the brief was Thomas Sponsler, City Attorney, Gresham.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Riggs, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Petitioners seek review of the boundary commission's orders approving annexations to the city. They argue that the orders are unlawful, because the statutory authority under which the commission acted constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. We rejected a substantially identical argument in Redland Water Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area LGBC, 63 Or App 641, 648-49, 665 P2d 1241, rev den 295 Or 541 (1983), and we do so again. Petitioners' other arguments are adversely resolved by Mid-County Future v. Port. Metro. Area LGBC (A47426), 106 Or App 647, 809 P2d 1354 (1991).
Affirmed.