Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bauer v. Poppen

June 18, 1973

BAUER, APPELLANT,
v.
POPPEN, RESPONDENT



Appeal from Circuit Court, Clackamas County. Winston L. Bradshaw, Judge.

Henry L. Bauer, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Barton C. Bobbitt and Bauer, Murphy, Bayless & Fundingsland, Portland.

Robert D. Burns, Deputy District Attorney, Oregon City, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Roger Rook, District Attorney, Oregon City.

Foley, Judge. Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry, Judge.

Foley

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus ordering the county clerk of Clackamas county to bring his system of recording certain documents, including trust deeds, into conformity with petitioner's interpretation of ORS 192.060. Following a hearing, the circuit court dismissed the alternative writ and this appeal followed.

Petitioner is an attorney who makes regular use

of the public records maintained by defendant county clerk. The evidence brought out at the hearing in the circuit court shows that the defendant county clerk has a recording system which utilizes microfilm. Defendant copies recorded documents (deeds, mortgages, etc.) by microfilming them, and the microfilm images are then kept in rolls.

Under defendant's recording system, each recorded document is identified by a number which consists of (1) a "year" prefix and (2) a number beginning with one in a particular year and consecutively thereafter during that year. For example, the first document recorded in 1970 would be numbered 70-1, the second document would be numbered 70-2, etc.

Each roll of microfilm accommodates several thousand documents. The evidence showed that a number of rolls are needed to accommodate all of the documents recorded in a given year, and that each roll is labeled only with the numbers of the documents contained within it and their dates of recordation. For example, the label affixed to the roll introduced into evidence at the hearing reads "INSTRUMENTS 72-29536 (9-29-72) to 72-31618 (10-16-72)."

The rolls are not given a "book or volume" number. Petitioner contends that this omission violates the provisions of ORS 192.060 which provide as follows:

"All photocopies made under ORS 192.040 and 192.050 shall be properly indexed and placed in conveniently accessible files. Each roll of microfilm shall be deemed a book or volume and shall be designated and numbered and provision ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.