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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.013 (2026)

Implementation and enforcement are of statewide concern

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

      197.013 Implementation and enforcement are of statewide concern. Implementation and enforcement of acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations are matters of statewide concern. [1981 c.884 §7]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985). “295(4) (presently subsection (5)) defines the term as follows: “As used in ORS 197.013,197.303 to 197.307: «* * * * * “(4) ‘Urban growth boundary’ means an urban growth boundary included or referenced in a comprehensive plan.”
Katherine Blumenkron v. Multnomah Cnty., 91 F.4th 1303 (9th Cir. 2024). “” Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.013 . “To promote coordinated administration of land uses consistent with comprehensive plans adopted throughout the state,” the legislature “establish[ed] a process for the review of state agency, city, county and special district land conservation and…”
Oregonians in Action v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 854 P.2d 1010 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Moreover, ORS 197.013 provides that, even after acknowledgment, ‘[implementation and enforcement of acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations are matters of statewide concern.”
Cope v. City of Cannon Beach, 836 P.2d 775 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “ORS 197.013. The interpretation of local legislation plays a major role in virtually every land use decision, and virtually all local land use legislation is susceptible to different interpretations that are “consistent” with its text.”
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991). “175(2)(d); ORS 197.013(11); compare ORS 197.175(2)(c) (if comprehensive plan is not acknowledged then city or county must make land use decisions in compliance with the goals).”
Yamhill Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 839 P.2d 238 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “Moreover, ORS 197.013 provides that, even after acknowledgment, “[implementation and enforcement of acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations are matters of statewide concern.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.013(11) — 1 case
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991). “175(2)(d); ORS 197.013(11); compare ORS 197.175(2)(c) (if comprehensive plan is not acknowledged then city or county must make land use decisions in compliance with the goals).”
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.