Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 195.318 (2026)

Judicial review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      195.318 Judicial review. (1) A person that is adversely affected by a final determination of a public entity under ORS 195.310 to 195.314 or sections 5 to 11, chapter 424, Oregon Laws 2007, sections 2 to 9 and 17, chapter 855, Oregon Laws 2009, and sections 2 to 7, chapter 8, Oregon Laws 2010, may obtain judicial review of that determination under ORS 34.010 to 34.100, if the determination is made by Metro, a city or a county, or under ORS 183.484, if the determination is one of a state agency. Proceedings for review of a state agency determination under ORS 195.310 to 195.314 or sections 5 to 11, chapter 424, Oregon Laws 2007, sections 2 to 9 and 17, chapter 855, Oregon Laws 2009, and sections 2 to 7, chapter 8, Oregon Laws 2010, must be commenced in the county in which the affected property is located. Upon motion of any party to the proceedings, the proceedings may be transferred to any other county with jurisdiction under ORS 183.484 in the manner provided by law for change of venue. A determination by a public entity under ORS 195.310 to 195.314 or sections 5 to 11, chapter 424, Oregon Laws 2007, sections 2 to 9 and 17, chapter 855, Oregon Laws 2009, and sections 2 to 7, chapter 8, Oregon Laws 2010, is not a land use decision.

      (2) A person is adversely affected under subsection (1) of this section if the person:

      (a) Is an owner of the property that is the subject of the final determination; or

      (b) Is a person who timely submitted written evidence, arguments or comments to a public entity concerning the determination.

      (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, judicial review of a final determination under ORS 195.305 or 195.310 to 195.314 or sections 5 to 11, chapter 424, Oregon Laws 2007, sections 2 to 9 and 17, chapter 855, Oregon Laws 2009, and sections 2 to 7, chapter 8, Oregon Laws 2010, is:

      (a) Limited to the evidence in the record of the public entity at the time of its final determination.

      (b) Available only for issues that are raised before the public entity with sufficient specificity to afford the public entity an opportunity to respond. [2007 c.424 §16]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2009–2024 · leading case: Maguire v. Clackamas Cnty., 279 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maguire v. Clackamas Cnty., 279 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 19× “Measure 49, section 16, now codified at ORS 195.318(1), provides that a determination by a public entity under Measure 49, sections 5 to 11, is not a land use decision; therefore, such a determination is not subject to LUBA’s jurisdiction.”
Ericsson v. State, 285 P.3d 722 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “ed; (2) the only process due to claimants was the process required by Measure 49; (3) the reviewing court did not err in refusing to take judicial notice of DLCD orders and any error was harmless because the orders were not shown to be inconsistent with the order under review;…”
Friends of Yamhill Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners, 238 P.3d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “4 Friends, which had participated in the vesting adjudication by the county vesting officer, sought review under section 16 of Measure 49, now codified at ORS 195.318. ORS 195.318(1) provides, in part, that a “person that is adversely affected by a final determination of a…”
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 377 P.3d 670 (Yamhill Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 6× “823 provides for judicial review of vesting decisions, as required by ORS 195.318(1): *477 “A Final County Vesting Decision of the Review Authority made under this ordinance is subject to review by the Yamhill County circuit court in a Writ of Review proceeding filed under…”
Friends of Yamhill Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners, 264 P.3d 1265 (Or. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Or Laws 2007, ch 424, § 16, codified at ORS 195.318 (providing for judicial review of county decisions under section five of Measure 49).”
State v. Crook Cnty., 256 P.3d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “That participation gave DLCD standing, pursuant to ORS 195.318, to seek review of the county court’s order in the circuit court.”
Davis v. Jefferson Cnty., 245 P.3d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “3 Petitioner sought review of the vesting determination under section 16 of Measure 49, now codified at ORS 195.318. ORS 195.318(1) provides, in part: *569 “A person that is adversely affected by a final determination of a public entity under ORS 195.”
Or. Shores Conservation Coal. v. Bd. of Commissioners of Clatsop Cnty., 441 P.3d 647 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “424, § 16, codified at ORS 195.318 (allowing challenges to county vested rights decisions under Measure 49 by way of writ of review); ORS 34.”
Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 258 P.3d 1269 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “See ORS 195.318. 7 The reviewing court’s reasoning, expressed in its letter opinion, was limited to the following observation: “I am in agreement with [the Aspmos’] arguments as to each issue in dispute.”
Kleikamp v. Bd. of Commissioners of Yamhill Cnty., 455 P.3d 546 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “100 (establishing writ of review proceedings); ORS 195.318 (providing for judicial review of county decisions under section 5 of Measure 49 by writ of review).”
Papworth v. Oregon Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 296 P.3d 632 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “484(5); ORS 195.318. When, as here, a petitioner *264 challenges an agency’s interpretation of a statute, the circuit court reviews the agency’s interpretation of the statute for legal error.”
Clayton v. State ex rel. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 313 P.3d 296 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “The circuit court affirmed the department’s order, concluding that the department’s determination of plaintiffs acquisition date was supported by substantial evidence and that plaintiffs arguments under SB 1049 were not reviewable because plaintiff had failed to raise them with…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 195.318(1) — 12 cases
Maguire v. Clackamas Cnty., 279 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Measure 49, section 16, now codified at ORS 195.318(1), provides that a determination by a public entity under Measure 49, sections 5 to 11, is not a land use decision; therefore, such a determination is not subject to LUBA’s jurisdiction.”
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 377 P.3d 670 (Yamhill Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “823 provides for judicial review of vesting decisions, as required by ORS 195.318(1): *477 “A Final County Vesting Decision of the Review Authority made under this ordinance is subject to review by the Yamhill County circuit court in a Writ of Review proceeding filed under…”
Friends of Yamhill Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners, 238 P.3d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “4 Friends, which had participated in the vesting adjudication by the county vesting officer, sought review under section 16 of Measure 49, now codified at ORS 195.318. ORS 195.318(1) provides, in part, that a “person that is adversely affected by a final determination of a…”
Davis v. Jefferson Cnty., 245 P.3d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “3 Petitioner sought review of the vesting determination under section 16 of Measure 49, now codified at ORS 195.318. ORS 195.318(1) provides, in part: *569 “A person that is adversely affected by a final determination of a public entity under ORS 195.”
State v. Crook Cnty., 256 P.3d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “That participation gave DLCD standing, pursuant to ORS 195.318, to seek review of the county court’s order in the circuit court.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 195.318(2) — 1 case
Fern Hollow Farms, Inc. v. Linn Cnty., 518 P.3d 142 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 195.318(2)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Crook Cnty., 256 P.3d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “That participation gave DLCD standing, pursuant to ORS 195.318, to seek review of the county court’s order in the circuit court.”
Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 258 P.3d 1269 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “See ORS 195.318. 7 The reviewing court’s reasoning, expressed in its letter opinion, was limited to the following observation: “I am in agreement with [the Aspmos’] arguments as to each issue in dispute.”
Alto v. City of Cannon Beach, 270 P.3d 392 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 195.318(3) — 4 cases
Friends of Yamhill Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners, 238 P.3d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “4 Friends, which had participated in the vesting adjudication by the county vesting officer, sought review under section 16 of Measure 49, now codified at ORS 195.318. ORS 195.318(1) provides, in part, that a “person that is adversely affected by a final determination of a…”
Davis v. Jefferson Cnty., 245 P.3d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “3 Petitioner sought review of the vesting determination under section 16 of Measure 49, now codified at ORS 195.318. ORS 195.318(1) provides, in part: *569 “A person that is adversely affected by a final determination of a public entity under ORS 195.”
Ericsson v. State, 285 P.3d 722 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “ed; (2) the only process due to claimants was the process required by Measure 49; (3) the reviewing court did not err in refusing to take judicial notice of DLCD orders and any error was harmless because the orders were not shown to be inconsistent with the order under review;…”
McCollum v. State ex rel. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 286 P.3d 916 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 195.318(3)(a) — 1 case
Ericsson v. State, 285 P.3d 722 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “ed; (2) the only process due to claimants was the process required by Measure 49; (3) the reviewing court did not err in refusing to take judicial notice of DLCD orders and any error was harmless because the orders were not shown to be inconsistent with the order under review;…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 195.318(3)(b) — 3 cases
Ericsson v. State, 285 P.3d 722 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “ed; (2) the only process due to claimants was the process required by Measure 49; (3) the reviewing court did not err in refusing to take judicial notice of DLCD orders and any error was harmless because the orders were not shown to be inconsistent with the order under review;…”
Clayton v. State ex rel. Dep't of Admin. Servs., 313 P.3d 296 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “The circuit court affirmed the department’s order, concluding that the department’s determination of plaintiffs acquisition date was supported by substantial evidence and that plaintiffs arguments under SB 1049 were not reviewable because plaintiff had failed to raise them with…”
Fern Hollow Farms, Inc. v. Linn Cnty., 518 P.3d 142 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.