Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.115

Appeal from decision of Columbia River Gorge Commission or county

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      196.115 Appeal from decision of Columbia River Gorge Commission or county. (1) For purposes of judicial review, decisions of the Columbia River Gorge Commission shall be subject to review solely as provided in this section, except as otherwise provided by the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, P.L. 99-663.

      (2)(a) A final action or order by the commission in a review or appeal of any action of the commission pursuant to section 10(c) or 15(b)(4) of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, or a final action or order by the commission in a review or appeal of any action of a county pursuant to section 15(a)(2) or 15(b)(4) of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, shall be reviewed by the Court of Appeals on a petition for judicial review filed and served as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section and ORS 183.482.

      (b) On a petition for judicial review under paragraph (a) of this subsection the Court of Appeals also shall review the action of the county that is the subject of the commission’s order, if requested in the petition.

      (c) The Court of Appeals shall issue a final order on review under this subsection within the time limits provided by ORS 197.855.

      (d) In lieu of judicial review under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, a county action may be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals under ORS 197.805 to 197.855. A notice of intent to appeal the county’s action shall be filed not later than 21 days after the commission’s order on the county action becomes final.

      (e) Notwithstanding ORS 197.835, the scope of review in an appeal pursuant to paragraph (d) of this subsection shall not include any issue relating to interpretation or implementation of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, P.L. 99-663, and any issue related to such interpretation or implementation shall be waived by the filing of an appeal under paragraph (d) of this subsection.

      (f) After county land use ordinances are approved pursuant to sections 7(b) and 8(h) to (k) of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, P.L. 99-663, the Land Use Board of Appeals shall not review land use decisions within the general management area or special management area for compliance with the statewide planning goals. The limitation of this paragraph shall not apply if the Land Conservation and Development Commission decertifies the management plan pursuant to ORS 196.107.

      (3)(a) If a petition for judicial review of a commission order is filed pursuant to subsection (2)(a) of this section, the procedures to be followed by the parties, the commission and the court, and the court’s review, shall be in accordance with ORS 183.480, 183.482 (1) to (7), 183.485, 183.486, 183.490 and 183.497, except as this section or the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, P.L. 99-663, otherwise provides.

      (b) Notwithstanding any provision of ORS 183.482:

      (A) The commission shall transmit the original record or the certified copy of the entire record within 21 days after service of a petition for judicial review is served on the commission; and

      (B) The parties shall file briefs with the court within the times allowed by rules of the court.

      (c) The court may affirm, reverse or remand the order. If the court finds that the agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of law and that a correct interpretation compels a particular action, the court shall:

      (A) Set aside or modify the order; or

      (B) Remand the case to the agency for further action under a correct interpretation of the provision of law.

      (d) The court shall remand the order to the agency if the court finds the agency’s exercise of discretion to be:

      (A) Outside the range of discretion delegated to the agency by law;

      (B) Inconsistent with an agency rule, an officially stated agency position or a prior agency practice, unless the inconsistency is explained by the agency; or

      (C) Otherwise in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision.

      (e) The court shall set aside or remand the order if the court finds that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.

      (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in any case where review of a county action as well as a commission order is sought pursuant to subsection (2)(a) and (b) of this section, the court shall accept any findings of fact by the commission which the court finds to be supported by substantial evidence in the whole record, and such findings by the commission shall prevail over any findings by the county concerning the same or substantially the same facts.

      (4)(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section or the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, P.L. 99-663, if review of a county action is sought pursuant to subsection (2)(b) of this section, the procedures to be followed by the parties, the county and the court, and the court’s review, shall be in accordance with those provisions governing review of county land use decisions by the Land Use Board of Appeals set forth in ORS 197.830 (2) to (8), (10), (15) and (16) and 197.835 (2) to (10), (12) and (13). As used in this section, “board” as used in the enumerated provisions shall mean “court” and the term “notice of intent to appeal” in ORS 197.830 (10) shall refer to the petition described in subsection (2) of this section.

      (b) In addition to the other requirements of service under this section, the petitioner shall serve the petition upon the persons and bodies described in ORS 197.830 (9), as a prerequisite to judicial review of the county action.

      (c) In accordance with subsection (3)(b)(B) of this section, a party to a review of both a commission order and a county action shall file only one brief with the court, which shall address both the commission order and the county action.

      (d) Review of a decision under ORS 197.830 to 197.845 shall be confined to the record. Subject to subsection (3)(f) of this section, the court shall be bound by any finding of fact of the county for which there is substantial evidence in the whole record. The court may appoint a master and follow the procedures of ORS 183.482 (7) in connection with matters that the board may take evidence for under ORS 197.835 (2).

      (5) Approval of county land use ordinances by the commission pursuant to section 7 of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, P.L. 99-663, may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals as provided in ORS 183.482.

      (6) Notwithstanding ORS 183.484, any proceeding filed in circuit court by or against the commission shall be filed with the circuit court for the county in which the commission has a principal business office or in which the land involved in the proceeding is located. [1987 c.856 §3; 1989 c.761 §17; 1993 c.317 §5; 1995 c.595 §16; 1999 c.621 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1993–2013 · leading case: Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or · cites it 8× “5 Following the management plan’s adoption, petitioners timely filed a petition for judicial review of the plan in the Oregon Court of Appeals, as authorized by ORS 196.115. 6 They argued that various aspects of the management plan violated the requirements of the Act and also…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2007) orctapp · cites it 10× “Judicial review of “decisions” of the commission in this court is governed by ORS 196.115. Specifically, a “final action or order” of the commission is subject to review on a petition for judicial review of an order in a contested case under the state Administrative Procedures…”
Friends v. COLUMBIA RIVER (S055915) (2009) or · cites it 7× “Our review of the commission's orders is governed by ORS 196.115. That statute provides, among other things, that the court's review "shall be in accordance with" various provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA) pertaining to judicial review of orders in…”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or · cites it 7× “*429 Our review of the commission’s orders is governed by ORS 196.115. That statute provides, among other things, that the court’s review “shall be in accordance with” various provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA) pertaining to judicial review of orders in…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2008) orctapp · cites it 5× “ORS 196.115 further provides that, in reviewing such an order, “(c) [t]he court may affirm, reverse or remand the order.”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2010) orctapp · cites it 6× “” This is an example of an instance in which the statutory standard for judicial review of commission actions embodied in ORS 196.115 — a standard that both applies and mimics certain provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act pertaining to judicial review of orders…”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or · cites it 2× “We concluded that, although the commission is not a state agency that is directly subject to the Oregon APA, Friends’ challenges to the management plan (and its revisions and amendments) nevertheless are analogous to typical “facial” challenges to the validity of a rule under…”
State ex rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego (1994) or “992; and “(f) Is subject to ORS 196.115 for any county land use decision that maybe reviewed by the Columbia River Gorge Commission pursuant to sections 10(c) or 15(a)(2) of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, P.”
Murray v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (1993) orctapp “16 USC §§ 544 etseq\ see ORS 196.115. We affirm. Petitioner’s first assignment includes numerous arguments, but all of them hinge on his assertion that the commission erred by treating his application as one for a subdivision, rather than simply an application to build a road.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River (2009) or · cites it 8× “(5) Following the management plan's adoption, petitioners timely filed a petition for judicial review of the plan in the Oregon Court of Appeals, as authorized by ORS 196.115. (6) They argued that various aspects of the management plan violated the requirements of the Act and…”
Columbia Gorge Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge (2010) orctapp · cites it 6× “115(3)(d)(B), providing for remand of a commission action that is "[i]nconsistent with an agency rule, an officially stated agency position or a prior agency practice, unless the inconsistency is explained by the agency.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River (2009) or · cites it 2× “Also implicit in Friends' argument is the assumption that certain of its proposed alternatives that the commission failed to consider were "more consistent with the purposes and standards of" the Act.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.115(2) — 2 cases
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or “5 Following the management plan’s adoption, petitioners timely filed a petition for judicial review of the plan in the Oregon Court of Appeals, as authorized by ORS 196.115. 6 They argued that various aspects of the management plan violated the requirements of the Act and also…”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River (2009) or “(5) Following the management plan's adoption, petitioners timely filed a petition for judicial review of the plan in the Oregon Court of Appeals, as authorized by ORS 196.115. (6) They argued that various aspects of the management plan violated the requirements of the Act and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.115(2)(a) — 7 cases
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2007) orctapp “Judicial review of “decisions” of the commission in this court is governed by ORS 196.115. Specifically, a “final action or order” of the commission is subject to review on a petition for judicial review of an order in a contested case under the state Administrative Procedures…”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or “5 Following the management plan’s adoption, petitioners timely filed a petition for judicial review of the plan in the Oregon Court of Appeals, as authorized by ORS 196.115. 6 They argued that various aspects of the management plan violated the requirements of the Act and also…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2008) orctapp “ORS 196.115 further provides that, in reviewing such an order, “(c) [t]he court may affirm, reverse or remand the order.”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2010) orctapp “” This is an example of an instance in which the statutory standard for judicial review of commission actions embodied in ORS 196.115 — a standard that both applies and mimics certain provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act pertaining to judicial review of orders…”
Haigh v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (1996) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.115(2)(e) — 1 case
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2008) orctapp “ORS 196.115 further provides that, in reviewing such an order, “(c) [t]he court may affirm, reverse or remand the order.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.115(3) — 4 cases
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2007) orctapp “Judicial review of “decisions” of the commission in this court is governed by ORS 196.115. Specifically, a “final action or order” of the commission is subject to review on a petition for judicial review of an order in a contested case under the state Administrative Procedures…”
Friends v. COLUMBIA RIVER (S055915) (2009) or “Our review of the commission's orders is governed by ORS 196.115. That statute provides, among other things, that the court's review "shall be in accordance with" various provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA) pertaining to judicial review of orders in…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2008) orctapp “ORS 196.115 further provides that, in reviewing such an order, “(c) [t]he court may affirm, reverse or remand the order.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or “*429 Our review of the commission’s orders is governed by ORS 196.115. That statute provides, among other things, that the court’s review “shall be in accordance with” various provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA) pertaining to judicial review of orders in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.115(3)(a) — 2 cases
Friends v. COLUMBIA RIVER (S055915) (2009) or “Our review of the commission's orders is governed by ORS 196.115. That statute provides, among other things, that the court's review "shall be in accordance with" various provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA) pertaining to judicial review of orders in…”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or “*429 Our review of the commission’s orders is governed by ORS 196.115. That statute provides, among other things, that the court’s review “shall be in accordance with” various provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA) pertaining to judicial review of orders in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.115(3)(c) — 6 cases
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or “5 Following the management plan’s adoption, petitioners timely filed a petition for judicial review of the plan in the Oregon Court of Appeals, as authorized by ORS 196.115. 6 They argued that various aspects of the management plan violated the requirements of the Act and also…”
Friends v. COLUMBIA RIVER (S055915) (2009) or “Our review of the commission's orders is governed by ORS 196.115. That statute provides, among other things, that the court's review "shall be in accordance with" various provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA) pertaining to judicial review of orders in…”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or “We concluded that, although the commission is not a state agency that is directly subject to the Oregon APA, Friends’ challenges to the management plan (and its revisions and amendments) nevertheless are analogous to typical “facial” challenges to the validity of a rule under…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2008) orctapp “ORS 196.115 further provides that, in reviewing such an order, “(c) [t]he court may affirm, reverse or remand the order.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or “*429 Our review of the commission’s orders is governed by ORS 196.115. That statute provides, among other things, that the court’s review “shall be in accordance with” various provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA) pertaining to judicial review of orders in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.115(3)(d) — 5 cases
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2007) orctapp “Judicial review of “decisions” of the commission in this court is governed by ORS 196.115. Specifically, a “final action or order” of the commission is subject to review on a petition for judicial review of an order in a contested case under the state Administrative Procedures…”
Friends v. COLUMBIA RIVER (S055915) (2009) or “Our review of the commission's orders is governed by ORS 196.115. That statute provides, among other things, that the court's review "shall be in accordance with" various provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA) pertaining to judicial review of orders in…”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or “*429 Our review of the commission’s orders is governed by ORS 196.115. That statute provides, among other things, that the court’s review “shall be in accordance with” various provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA) pertaining to judicial review of orders in…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2013) orctapp
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2012) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.115(3)(d)(A) — 5 cases
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2007) orctapp “Judicial review of “decisions” of the commission in this court is governed by ORS 196.115. Specifically, a “final action or order” of the commission is subject to review on a petition for judicial review of an order in a contested case under the state Administrative Procedures…”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or “5 Following the management plan’s adoption, petitioners timely filed a petition for judicial review of the plan in the Oregon Court of Appeals, as authorized by ORS 196.115. 6 They argued that various aspects of the management plan violated the requirements of the Act and also…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2010) orctapp “” This is an example of an instance in which the statutory standard for judicial review of commission actions embodied in ORS 196.115 — a standard that both applies and mimics certain provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act pertaining to judicial review of orders…”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River (2009) or “(5) Following the management plan's adoption, petitioners timely filed a petition for judicial review of the plan in the Oregon Court of Appeals, as authorized by ORS 196.115. (6) They argued that various aspects of the management plan violated the requirements of the Act and…”
Columbia Gorge Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge (2010) orctapp “115(3)(d)(B), providing for remand of a commission action that is "[i]nconsistent with an agency rule, an officially stated agency position or a prior agency practice, unless the inconsistency is explained by the agency.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.115(3)(d)(B) — 5 cases
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2007) orctapp “Judicial review of “decisions” of the commission in this court is governed by ORS 196.115. Specifically, a “final action or order” of the commission is subject to review on a petition for judicial review of an order in a contested case under the state Administrative Procedures…”
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2010) orctapp “” This is an example of an instance in which the statutory standard for judicial review of commission actions embodied in ORS 196.115 — a standard that both applies and mimics certain provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act pertaining to judicial review of orders…”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2009) or “We concluded that, although the commission is not a state agency that is directly subject to the Oregon APA, Friends’ challenges to the management plan (and its revisions and amendments) nevertheless are analogous to typical “facial” challenges to the validity of a rule under…”
Columbia Gorge Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge (2010) orctapp “115(3)(d)(B), providing for remand of a commission action that is "[i]nconsistent with an agency rule, an officially stated agency position or a prior agency practice, unless the inconsistency is explained by the agency.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River (2009) or “Also implicit in Friends' argument is the assumption that certain of its proposed alternatives that the commission failed to consider were "more consistent with the purposes and standards of" the Act.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.115(3)(e) — 2 cases
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission (2010) orctapp “” This is an example of an instance in which the statutory standard for judicial review of commission actions embodied in ORS 196.115 — a standard that both applies and mimics certain provisions of the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act pertaining to judicial review of orders…”
Columbia Gorge Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge (2010) orctapp “115(3)(d)(B), providing for remand of a commission action that is "[i]nconsistent with an agency rule, an officially stated agency position or a prior agency practice, unless the inconsistency is explained by the agency.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.115(c) — 1 case
Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River (2009) or “Also implicit in Friends' argument is the assumption that certain of its proposed alternatives that the commission failed to consider were "more consistent with the purposes and standards of" the Act.”
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.