Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Larson v. Wallowa Countygreen2 sentences1997We also held that LUBA could remand local land use decisions to require local governments to cure omissions and deficiencies in their interpretation of local legislation. 116 Or App at 103-04 .” 117 Or App at 453 (emphasis in original). 1997We also held that LUBA could remand local land use decisions to require local governments to cure omissions and deficiencies in their interpretation of local legislation. 116 Or App at 103-04 .” 117 Or App at 453 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2 |
Goose Hollow Foothills League v. City of Portlandgreen2 sentences1993We suggested in Goose Hollow Foothills League v. City of Portland, supra, 117 Or App at 217 , that the sheer number of separate provisions in local land use legislation, which can arguably be read as applying to any given land use decision, makes “local interpretation” an open-ended exercise that can seldom fail the Clark test. 1993We suggested in Goose Hollow Foothills League v. City of Portland, supra, 117 Or App at 217 , that the sheer number of separate provisions in local land use legislation, which can arguably be read as applying to any given land use decision, makes “local interpretation” an open-ended exercise that can seldom fail the Clark test. | 1 | 2 |
Cope v. City of Cannon Beachgreen2 sentences1992We said in Cope v. City of Cannon Beach, 115 Or App 11, 19 , 836 P2d 775 (1992): “If any local interpretation could be reversible under the Clark standard, this one is not. 1992We said in Cope v. City of Cannon Beach, 115 Or App 11, 19 , 836 P2d 775 (1992): “If any local interpretation could be reversible under the Clark standard, this one is not. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2008See State v. Clark (A126679), 220 Or App 197 , 185 P3d 516 (2008) (although the defendant pleaded guilty, he did not waive his right to have a jury find the applicable sentencing factors; waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege and court declined to infer waiver from a silent record); State v. Pawlowski, 221 Or App 227 , 190 P3d 387 , rev den, 345 Or 381 (2008) (applying Clark test in determining whether the record gave rise to competing inferences about the defendant’s failure to request jury findings; concluding that it did not and that the assert 2008See State v. Clark (A126679), 220 Or App 197 , 185 P3d 516 (2008) (although the defendant pleaded guilty, he did not waive his right to have a jury find the applicable sentencing factors; waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege and court declined to infer waiver from a silent record); State v. Pawlowski, 221 Or App 227 , 190 P3d 387 , rev den, 345 Or 381 (2008) (applying Clark test in determining whether the record gave rise to competing inferences about the defendant’s failure to request jury findings; concluding that it did not and that the assert | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Haywardgreen2 sentences1993See also Green v. Hayward, supra, 275 Or at 706 . *273 LUBA rejected petitioners’ argument. 1993See also Green v. Hayward, supra, 275 Or at 706 . *273 LUBA rejected petitioners’ argument. | 1 | 1 |
Cope v. City of Cannon Beachgreen2 sentences1993See Cope v. City of Cannon Beach, 115 Or App 11 , 836 P2d 775 (1992), aff'd on unrelated grounds, 317 Or 339 , 855 P2d 1083 (1993); Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County, supra (Durham, J., concurring). 1993See Cope v. City of Cannon Beach, 115 Or App 11 , 836 P2d 775 (1992), aff'd on unrelated grounds, 317 Or 339 , 855 P2d 1083 (1993); Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County, supra (Durham, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Forster v. Polk Countygreen2 sentences1992See Forster v. Polk County, 115 Or App 475 , 839 P2d 241 (1992); Kenagy v. Benton County, 115 Or App 131 , 838 P2d 1076 (1992). 1992See Forster v. Polk County, 115 Or App 475 , 839 P2d 241 (1992); Kenagy v. Benton County, 115 Or App 131 , 838 P2d 1076 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Langford v. City of Eugene
green
2 sentences1999Further, we have emphasized repeatedly that LUBA’s task and ours in reviewing a local interpretation under the Clark standard is not to resolve the question of “what the local legislation in fact means,” nor is it “to provide an independent interpretation of local land use legislation that might appear preferable to the local government’s.” Zippel v. Josephine County, 128 Or App 458, 461 , 876 P2d 854 , rev den 320 Or 272 (1994); Langford v. City of Eugene, 126 Or App 52, 57 , 867 P2d 535 , rev den 318 Or 478 (1994). *218 Rather, the issue is whether the local government’s interpretation, take 1999Further, we have emphasized repeatedly that LUBA’s task and ours in reviewing a local interpretation under the Clark standard is not to resolve the question of “what the local legislation in fact means,” nor is it “to provide an independent interpretation of local land use legislation that might appear preferable to the local government’s.” Zippel v. Josephine County, 128 Or App 458, 461 , 876 P2d 854 , rev den 320 Or 272 (1994); Langford v. City of Eugene, 126 Or App 52, 57 , 867 P2d 535 , rev den 318 Or 478 (1994). *218 Rather, the issue is whether the local government’s interpretation, take | 2 | 1996–1999 |
Schmidt v. ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON
green
1 sentence2008See State v. Clark (A126679), 220 Or App 197 , 185 P3d 516 (2008) (although the defendant pleaded guilty, he did not waive his right to have a jury find the applicable sentencing factors; waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege and court declined to infer waiver from a silent record); State v. Pawlowski, 221 Or App 227 , 190 P3d 387 , rev den, 345 Or 381 (2008) (applying Clark test in determining whether the record gave rise to competing inferences about the defendant’s failure to request jury findings; concluding that it did not and that the assert | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Chavez
neutral
1 sentence2008See State v. Clark (A126679), 220 Or App 197 , 185 P3d 516 (2008) (although the defendant pleaded guilty, he did not waive his right to have a jury find the applicable sentencing factors; waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege and court declined to infer waiver from a silent record); State v. Pawlowski, 221 Or App 227 , 190 P3d 387 , rev den, 345 Or 381 (2008) (applying Clark test in determining whether the record gave rise to competing inferences about the defendant’s failure to request jury findings; concluding that it did not and that the assert | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Pawlowski
neutral
1 sentence2008See State v. Clark (A126679), 220 Or App 197 , 185 P3d 516 (2008) (although the defendant pleaded guilty, he did not waive his right to have a jury find the applicable sentencing factors; waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege and court declined to infer waiver from a silent record); State v. Pawlowski, 221 Or App 227 , 190 P3d 387 , rev den, 345 Or 381 (2008) (applying Clark test in determining whether the record gave rise to competing inferences about the defendant’s failure to request jury findings; concluding that it did not and that the assert | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Zippel v. Josephine County
green
2 sentences1999Further, we have emphasized repeatedly that LUBA’s task and ours in reviewing a local interpretation under the Clark standard is not to resolve the question of “what the local legislation in fact means,” nor is it “to provide an independent interpretation of local land use legislation that might appear preferable to the local government’s.” Zippel v. Josephine County, 128 Or App 458, 461 , 876 P2d 854 , rev den 320 Or 272 (1994); Langford v. City of Eugene, 126 Or App 52, 57 , 867 P2d 535 , rev den 318 Or 478 (1994). *218 Rather, the issue is whether the local government’s interpretation, take 1999Further, we have emphasized repeatedly that LUBA’s task and ours in reviewing a local interpretation under the Clark standard is not to resolve the question of “what the local legislation in fact means,” nor is it “to provide an independent interpretation of local land use legislation that might appear preferable to the local government’s.” Zippel v. Josephine County, 128 Or App 458, 461 , 876 P2d 854 , rev den 320 Or 272 (1994); Langford v. City of Eugene, 126 Or App 52, 57 , 867 P2d 535 , rev den 318 Or 478 (1994). *218 Rather, the issue is whether the local government’s interpretation, take | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Weeks v. City of Tillamook
green
2 sentences1997We also held that LUBA could remand local land use decisions to require local governments to cure omissions and deficiencies in their interpretation of local legislation. 116 Or.App. at 103-04 [ 840 P.2d 1350 ]." 117 Or.App. at 453, 844 P.2d 914 (emphasis in original). 1997We also held that LUBA could remand local land use decisions to require local governments to cure omissions and deficiencies in their interpretation of local legislation. 116 Or.App. at 103-04 [ 840 P.2d 1350 ]." 117 Or.App. at 453, 844 P.2d 914 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County
green
2 sentences1994Dept. of Land Conservation v. Crook County, 124 Or App 8 , 860 P2d 907 (1993); Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County, 123 Or App 256 , 860 P2d 278 , on recon 125 Or App 122 , 866 P2d 463 (1993). 1994Dept. of Land Conservation v. Crook County, 124 Or App 8 , 860 P2d 907 (1993); Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County, 123 Or App 256 , 860 P2d 278 , on recon 125 Or App 122 , 866 P2d 463 (1993). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Department of Land Conservation & Development v. Crook County
green
2 sentences1994Dept. of Land Conservation v. Crook County, 124 Or App 8 , 860 P2d 907 (1993); Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County, 123 Or App 256 , 860 P2d 278 , on recon 125 Or App 122 , 866 P2d 463 (1993). 1994Dept. of Land Conservation v. Crook County, 124 Or App 8 , 860 P2d 907 (1993); Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County, 123 Or App 256 , 860 P2d 278 , on recon 125 Or App 122 , 866 P2d 463 (1993). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County
green
2 sentences1994Dept. of Land Conservation v. Crook County, 124 Or App 8 , 860 P2d 907 (1993); Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County, 123 Or App 256 , 860 P2d 278 , on recon 125 Or App 122 , 866 P2d 463 (1993). 1994Dept. of Land Conservation v. Crook County, 124 Or App 8 , 860 P2d 907 (1993); Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County, 123 Or App 256 , 860 P2d 278 , on recon 125 Or App 122 , 866 P2d 463 (1993). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Reusser v. Washington County
green
2 sentences1993We have said, in Goose Hollow Foothills League v. City of Portland, 117 Or App 211, 218 , 843 P2d 992 (1992), and Reusser v. Washington County, 122 Or App 33 , 36 n 1, 857 *274 P2d 182 (1993), that clear and unambiguous local legislation requires and permits no local interpretation to be reviewed under the Clark test. 1993We have said, in Goose Hollow Foothills League v. City of Portland, 117 Or App 211, 218 , 843 P2d 992 (1992), and Reusser v. Washington County, 122 Or App 33 , 36 n 1, 857 *274 P2d 182 (1993), that clear and unambiguous local legislation requires and permits no local interpretation to be reviewed under the Clark test. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
West v. Clackamas County
green
2 sentences1993Similarly, we said in West v. Clackamas County, 116 Or.App. 89, 93 , 840 P.2d 1354 (1992), that the ordinance there "contains a grab bag of [arguably relevant] provisions" and, under Clark , "the selection from the grab bag is for the local deciding entity to make." This case does not appear to involve acknowledged local provisions that directly implement specific requirements of the statewide planning goals. 1993Similarly, we said in West v. Clackamas County, 116 Or.App. 89, 93 , 840 P.2d 1354 (1992), that the ordinance there "contains a grab bag of [arguably relevant] provisions" and, under Clark , "the selection from the grab bag is for the local deciding entity to make." This case does not appear to involve acknowledged local provisions that directly implement specific requirements of the statewide planning goals. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Kenagy v. Benton County
green
2 sentences1992See Forster v. Polk County, 115 Or App 475 , 839 P2d 241 (1992); Kenagy v. Benton County, 115 Or App 131 , 838 P2d 1076 (1992). 1992See Forster v. Polk County, 115 Or App 475 , 839 P2d 241 (1992); Kenagy v. Benton County, 115 Or App 131 , 838 P2d 1076 (1992). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Hunter v. State of Oregon
green
2 sentences1988The Supreme Court of Oregon allowed review and requested counsel to brief the question of Olsen's continuing validity.” In Hunter v. State of Oregon, 306 Or 529, 533 , 761 P2d 502 (1988), the Supreme Court applied the Clark analysis, see State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 240 , 630 P2d 810 , cert den sub nom Clark v. Oregon, 454 US 1084 (1981), and did not discuss Olsen . 4 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 1988The Supreme Court of Oregon allowed review and requested counsel to brief the question of Olsen's continuing validity.” In Hunter v. State of Oregon, 306 Or 529, 533 , 761 P2d 502 (1988), the Supreme Court applied the Clark analysis, see State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 240 , 630 P2d 810 , cert den sub nom Clark v. Oregon, 454 US 1084 (1981), and did not discuss Olsen . 4 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences1988The Supreme Court of Oregon allowed review and requested counsel to brief the question of Olsen's continuing validity.” In Hunter v. State of Oregon, 306 Or 529, 533 , 761 P2d 502 (1988), the Supreme Court applied the Clark analysis, see State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 240 , 630 P2d 810 , cert den sub nom Clark v. Oregon, 454 US 1084 (1981), and did not discuss Olsen . 4 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 1988The Supreme Court of Oregon allowed review and requested counsel to brief the question of Olsen's continuing validity.” In Hunter v. State of Oregon, 306 Or 529, 533 , 761 P2d 502 (1988), the Supreme Court applied the Clark analysis, see State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 240 , 630 P2d 810 , cert den sub nom Clark v. Oregon, 454 US 1084 (1981), and did not discuss Olsen . 4 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” | 1 | 1988–1988 |
O'Connell v. Kniskern
green
2 sentences1988The Supreme Court of Oregon allowed review and requested counsel to brief the question of Olsen's continuing validity.” In Hunter v. State of Oregon, 306 Or 529, 533 , 761 P2d 502 (1988), the Supreme Court applied the Clark analysis, see State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 240 , 630 P2d 810 , cert den sub nom Clark v. Oregon, 454 US 1084 (1981), and did not discuss Olsen . 4 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 1988The Supreme Court of Oregon allowed review and requested counsel to brief the question of Olsen's continuing validity.” In Hunter v. State of Oregon, 306 Or 529, 533 , 761 P2d 502 (1988), the Supreme Court applied the Clark analysis, see State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 240 , 630 P2d 810 , cert den sub nom Clark v. Oregon, 454 US 1084 (1981), and did not discuss Olsen . 4 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.