Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015 (2026)

Definitions for ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A

✓ current as of May 2026

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

197.015 Definitions for ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A. As used in ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A, unless the context requires otherwise:

(1) “Acknowledgment” means a commission order that certifies that a comprehensive plan and land use regulations, land use regulation or plan or regulation amendment complies with the goals or certifies that Metro land use planning goals and objectives, Metro regional framework plan, amendments to Metro planning goals and objectives or amendments to the Metro regional framework plan comply with the goals.

(2) “Board” means the Land Use Board of Appeals.

(3) “Carport” means a stationary structure consisting of a roof with its supports and not more than one wall, or storage cabinet substituting for a wall, and used for sheltering a motor vehicle.

(4) “Commission” means the Land Conservation and Development Commission.

(5) “Comprehensive plan” means a generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a local government that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including but not limited to sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities, and natural resources and air and water quality management programs. “Comprehensive” means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area covered and functional and natural activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the plan. “General nature” means a summary of policies and proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily indicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. A plan is “coordinated” when the needs of all levels of governments, semipublic and private agencies and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much as possible. “Land” includes water, both surface and subsurface, and the air.

(6) “Department” means the Department of Land Conservation and Development.

(7) “Director” means the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development.

(8) “Goals” means the mandatory statewide land use planning standards adopted by the commission pursuant to ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A.

(9) “Guidelines” means suggested approaches designed to aid cities and counties in preparation, adoption and implementation of comprehensive plans in compliance with goals and to aid state agencies and special districts in the preparation, adoption and implementation of plans, programs and regulations in compliance with goals. Guidelines are advisory and do not limit state agencies, cities, counties and special districts to a single approach.

(10) “Land use decision”:

(a) Includes:

(A) A final decision or determination made by a local government or special district that concerns the adoption, amendment or application of:

(i) The goals;

(ii) A comprehensive plan provision;

(iii) A land use regulation; or

(iv) A new land use regulation;

(B) A final decision or determination of a state agency other than the commission with respect to which the agency is required to apply the goals;

(D) An expedited land division under ORS 197A.140;

(b) Does not include a decision of a local government:

(A) That is made under land use standards that do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment;

(B) That approves or denies a building permit issued under clear and objective land use standards;

(D) That determines final engineering design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair or preservation of a transportation facility that is otherwise authorized by and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations;

(E) That approves, pursuant to ORS 480.450 (7), the siting, installation, maintenance or removal of a liquefied petroleum gas container or receptacle regulated exclusively by the State Fire Marshal under ORS 480.410 to 480.460;

(F) That approves or denies approval of a final subdivision or partition plat or that determines whether a final subdivision or partition plat substantially conforms to the tentative subdivision or partition plan; or

(G) That a proposed state agency action subject to ORS 197.180 (1) is compatible with the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing the plan, if:

(i) The local government has already made a land use decision authorizing a use or activity that encompasses the proposed state agency action;

(ii) The use or activity that would be authorized, funded or undertaken by the proposed state agency action is allowed without review under the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing the plan; or

(iii) The use or activity that would be authorized, funded or undertaken by the proposed state agency action requires a future land use review under the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing the plan;

(d) Does not include, except as provided in ORS 215.213 (13)(c) or 215.283 (6)(c), authorization of an outdoor mass gathering as defined in ORS 433.735, or other gathering of fewer than 3,000 persons that is not anticipated to continue for more than 120 hours in any three-month period; and

(e) Does not include:

(A) A writ of mandamus issued by a circuit court in accordance with ORS 215.429 or 227.179;

(B) Any local decision or action taken on an application subject to ORS 215.427 or 227.178 after a petition for a writ of mandamus has been filed under ORS 215.429 or 227.179; or

(i) The local government with land use jurisdiction over a use or activity that would be authorized, funded or undertaken by the state agency as a result of the state agency action has already made a land use decision approving the use or activity; or

(ii) A use or activity that would be authorized, funded or undertaken by the state agency as a result of the state agency action is allowed without review under the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing the plan.

(11) “Land use regulation” means any local government zoning ordinance, land division ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or 92.046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for implementing a comprehensive plan.

(12)(a) “Limited land use decision” means a final decision or determination made by a local government pertaining to a site within an urban growth boundary that concerns:

(A) The approval or denial of a tentative subdivision or partition plan, as described in ORS 92.040 (1).

(B) The approval or denial of an application based on discretionary standards designed to regulate the physical characteristics of a use permitted outright, including but not limited to site review and design review.

(D) The approval or denial of an application for a property line adjustment.

(E) The approval or denial of an application for an extension, alteration or expansion of a nonconforming use.

(b) “Limited land use decision” does not mean a final decision made by a local government pertaining to a site within an urban growth boundary that concerns approval or denial of a final subdivision or partition plat or that determines whether a final subdivision or partition plat substantially conforms to the tentative subdivision or partition plan.

(13) “Local government” means any city, county or Metro or an association of local governments performing land use planning functions under ORS 195.025.

(14) “Metro” means a metropolitan service district organized under ORS chapter 268.

(15) “Metro planning goals and objectives” means the land use goals and objectives that Metro may adopt under ORS 268.380 (1)(a). The goals and objectives do not constitute a comprehensive plan.

(16) “Metro regional framework plan” means the regional framework plan required by the 1992 Metro Charter or its separate components. Neither the regional framework plan nor its individual components constitute a comprehensive plan.

(17) “New land use regulation” means a land use regulation other than an amendment to an acknowledged land use regulation adopted by a local government that already has a comprehensive plan and land regulations acknowledged under ORS 197.251.

(18) “Person” means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision or agency or public or private organization of any kind. The Land Conservation and Development Commission or its designee is considered a person for purposes of appeal under ORS chapters 195, 197 and 197A.

(19) “Special district” means any unit of local government, other than a city, county, Metro or an association of local governments performing land use planning functions under ORS 195.025, authorized and regulated by statute and includes but is not limited to water control districts, domestic water associations and water cooperatives, irrigation districts, port districts, regional air quality control authorities, fire districts, school districts, hospital districts, mass transit districts and sanitary districts.

(20) “Urban growth boundary” means an acknowledged urban growth boundary contained in a city or county comprehensive plan or adopted by Metro under ORS 268.390 (3).

(21) “Urban unincorporated community” means an area designated in a county’s acknowledged comprehensive plan as an urban unincorporated community after December 5, 1994.

(22) “Voluntary association of local governments” means a regional planning agency in this state officially designated by the Governor pursuant to the federal Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95 as a regional clearinghouse.

(23) “Wetlands” means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration that are sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. [1973 c.80 §3; 1977 c.664 §2; 1979 c.772 §7; 1981 c.748 §1; 1983 c.827 §1; 1989 c.761 §1; 1989 c.837 §23; 1991 c.817 §1; 1993 c.438 §1; 1993 c.550 §4; 1995 c.595 §22; 1995 c.812 §1; 1997 c.833 §20; 1999 c.533 §11; 1999 c.866 §1; 2001 c.955 §§2,3; 2005 c.22 §137; 2005 c.88 §3; 2005 c.239 §2; 2005 c.829 §8; 2007 c.354 §§4,5; 2007 c.459 §§1,2; 2009 c.606 §2; 2009 c.790 §1; 2011 c.567 §7; 2013 c.575 §11; 2023 c.13 §76; 2024 c.110 §44; 2025 c.476 §27]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 265 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Doughton v. Douglas Cnty., 728 P.2d 887 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Doughton v. Douglas Cnty., 728 P.2d 887 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 16× “We hold that ORS 197.015 (10) (b) does not apply to the county’s decision and does not divest LUBA of jurisdiction over petitioner’s appeal.”

Landsem Farms, LP v. Marion Cnty., 78 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 21× “Petitioner contends, among other arguments, that ORS 197.015(10)(d), which exempts certain gatherings from land use regulation, applies to its conditional use application.”

Murphy Citizens Advisory Comm. v. Josephine Cnty., 934 P.2d 415 (Or. 1997). · cites it 18× “In this land use case, we are called on to decide the scope and meaning of a 1995 amendment to ORS 197.015, the definition section of Oregon’s land use laws.”

McPhillips Farm, Inc. v. Yamhill Cnty., 300 P.3d 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 30× “” We therefore conclude that the review proceeding was properly dismissed by LUBA under ORS 197.015 (lOXbXHXi). Affirmed. Respondent Riverbend Landfill Company, Inc.”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985). · cites it 6× “Is incorporation of a new city a “land use decision” under ORS 197.015(10)? We hold that it is. Therefore, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) had jurisdiction to review the county court’s approval of the incorporation petition.”

Thomas v. Wasco Cnty., 392 P.3d 741 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 17× “As support for their construction, respondents invoke statutory context, including, specifically, ORS 197.015 (10) (d) and ORS 433.763(l)(c)(A).”

Marks v. LCDC, 536 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 8× “The IGAs are not stat- utory land use decisions [under ORS 197.015], but they are significant impacts test land use decisions.”

Jones v. Douglas Cnty., 270 P.3d 278 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 13× “That rule implements Statewide Planning Goal 3, concerning agricultural land, as well as ORS 197.015. In its entirety, OAR 660-033-0140 provides: “(1) Except as provided for in section (5) of this rule, a discretionary decision, except for a land division, made *87 after the…”

Younger v. City of Portland, 752 P.2d 262 (Or. 1988). · cites it 4× “" ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A)(ii), (iii). [3] The quotation is from a discussion of the city's findings regarding traffic effects.”

Hammer v. Clackamas Cnty., 79 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “9 LUBA discussed ORS 197.015 in Bauer v. City of Portland, 38 Or LUBA 715, 719 (2000), and concluded that its “authority to review limited land use decisions includes review of subdivision approvals, whether at the preliminary or the final plat stage.”

Cape v. City of Beaverton, 68 P.3d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 13× “See ORS 197.015(1); ORS 197.251. 2 “Exhibit B” lists county and city “Land Use Designation Equivalents/ 3 LUBA added that it did not know why a city could not bifurcate the annexation process by addressing the statewide planning goal or comprehensive plan requirements in one…”

Akiyama v. Tillamook Cnty., 333 Or. App. 315 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 7× “Petitioners argue that Ordinance 84-2 is a “land use regulation,” within the meaning of ORS 197.015(1), presenting three different theories as to why: (1) the ordinance amended a prior land use regulation; (2) the ordinance regulates nonconforming land uses; and (3) the…”

Show all 265 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(1) — 11 cases

Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 706 P.2d 949 (Or. 1985).

Byrd v. Stringer, 666 P.2d 1332 (Or. 1983).

Akiyama v. Tillamook Cnty., 333 Or. App. 315 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “Petitioners argue that Ordinance 84-2 is a “land use regulation,” within the meaning of ORS 197.015(1), presenting three different theories as to why: (1) the ordinance amended a prior land use regulation; (2) the ordinance regulates nonconforming land uses; and (3) the…”

City of Salem v. Families for Responsible Gov't, Inc., 694 P.2d 965 (Or. 1985).

Cape v. City of Beaverton, 68 P.3d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “See ORS 197.015(1); ORS 197.251. 2 “Exhibit B” lists county and city “Land Use Designation Equivalents/ 3 LUBA added that it did not know why a city could not bifurcate the annexation process by addressing the statewide planning goal or comprehensive plan requirements in one…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10) — 84 cases

Marks v. LCDC, 536 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “The IGAs are not stat- utory land use decisions [under ORS 197.015], but they are significant impacts test land use decisions.”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985). “Is incorporation of a new city a “land use decision” under ORS 197.015(10)? We hold that it is. Therefore, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) had jurisdiction to review the county court’s approval of the incorporation petition.”

Murphy Citizens Advisory Comm. v. Josephine Cnty., 860 P.2d 857 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Heritage Enter. v. City of Corvallis, 708 P.2d 601 (Or. 1985).

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 679 P.2d 320 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(6)(A) — 1 case

Franklin v. Deschutes Cnty., 911 P.2d 339 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(a) — 21 cases

Flight Shop, Inc. v. Leading Edge Aviation, Inc., 373 P.3d 177 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Thomas v. Wasco Cnty., 392 P.3d 741 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “As support for their construction, respondents invoke statutory context, including, specifically, ORS 197.015 (10) (d) and ORS 433.763(l)(c)(A).”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 679 P.2d 320 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 659 P.2d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(a)(A) — 28 cases

Murphy Citizens Advisory Comm. v. Josephine Cnty., 878 P.2d 414 (Or. 1994).

State Ex Rel. City of Powers v. Coos Cnty. Airport Dist., 119 P.3d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Heritage Enter. v. City of Corvallis, 693 P.2d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(a)(A)(i) — 4 cases

Hammer v. Clackamas Cnty., 79 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “9 LUBA discussed ORS 197.015 in Bauer v. City of Portland, 38 Or LUBA 715, 719 (2000), and concluded that its “authority to review limited land use decisions includes review of subdivision approvals, whether at the preliminary or the final plat stage.”

Billington v. Polk Cnty., 703 P.2d 232 (Or. 1985).

Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Lincoln Cnty., 992 P.2d 936 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(a)(A)(ii) — 7 cases

Younger v. City of Portland, 752 P.2d 262 (Or. 1988). “" ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A)(ii), (iii). [3] The quotation is from a discussion of the city's findings regarding traffic effects.”

Heritage Enter. v. City of Corvallis, 708 P.2d 601 (Or. 1985).

Billington v. Polk Cnty., 703 P.2d 232 (Or. 1985).

Cent. Eastside Indus. Council v. City of Portland, 875 P.2d 482 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(a)(A)(iii) — 9 cases

Forman v. Clatsop Cnty., 681 P.2d 786 (Or. 1984).

Jones v. Douglas Cnty., 270 P.3d 278 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “That rule implements Statewide Planning Goal 3, concerning agricultural land, as well as ORS 197.015. In its entirety, OAR 660-033-0140 provides: “(1) Except as provided for in section (5) of this rule, a discretionary decision, except for a land division, made *87 after the…”

Scappoose Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Columbia Cnty., 984 P.2d 876 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

Lake Oswego Pres. Soc'y v. City of Lake Oswego, 344 P.3d 26 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(a)(B) — 2 cases

Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Oregonians in Action v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 795 P.2d 1098 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(a)(a) — 1 case

Cent. Eastside Indus. Council v. City of Portland, 905 P.2d 265 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(a)(iii) — 1 case

Hardtla v. City of Cannon Beach, 52 P.3d 437 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(b) — 32 cases

Doughton v. Douglas Cnty., 728 P.2d 887 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “We hold that ORS 197.015 (10) (b) does not apply to the county’s decision and does not divest LUBA of jurisdiction over petitioner’s appeal.”

Wright v. KECH-TV, 707 P.2d 1232 (Or. 1985).

Clackamas Cnty. v. Marson, 874 P.2d 110 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Doughton v. Douglas Cnty., 750 P.2d 1174 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(b)(A) — 16 cases

Tirumali v. City of Portland, 7 P.3d 761 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

Grabhorn, Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 297 P.3d 524 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

State ex rel. Schrodt v. Jackson Cnty., 324 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(b)(B) — 14 cases

Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach, 504 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Southwood Homeowners Ass'n v. City Council of Philomath, 806 P.2d 162 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Flight Shop, Inc. v. Leading Edge Aviation, Inc., 373 P.3d 177 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

State ex rel. Parmenter v. Wallowa Cnty. Court, 835 P.2d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(b)(C) — 1 case

Campbell v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 813 P.2d 1074 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(b)(D) — 3 cases

State ex rel. Parmenter v. Wallowa Cnty. Court, 835 P.2d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Regency Centers, L.P. v. Washington Cnty., 335 P.3d 856 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

Rhodes v. City of Talent, 104 P.3d 1180 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(b)(H) — 4 cases

Sky Lakes Med. Ctr. v. Dept. of Human Servs., 484 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

McPhillips Farm, Inc. v. Yamhill Cnty., 300 P.3d 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “” We therefore conclude that the review proceeding was properly dismissed by LUBA under ORS 197.015 (lOXbXHXi). Affirmed. Respondent Riverbend Landfill Company, Inc.”

Nw. Environ. Def. Ctr. v. City of Portland, 344 Or. App. 678 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(b)(H)(i) — 3 cases

Waste Not of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 471 P.3d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Grabhorn, Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 297 P.3d 524 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(b)(H)(ii) — 2 cases

Nw. Environ. Def. Ctr. v. City of Portland, 344 Or. App. 678 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(b)(H)(iii) — 2 cases

Sky Lakes Med. Ctr. v. Dept. of Human Servs., 484 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(d) — 6 cases

Landsem Farms, LP v. Marion Cnty., 78 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “Petitioner contends, among other arguments, that ORS 197.015(10)(d), which exempts certain gatherings from land use regulation, applies to its conditional use application.”

Murphy Citizens Advisory Comm. v. Josephine Cnty., 934 P.2d 415 (Or. 1997). “In this land use case, we are called on to decide the scope and meaning of a 1995 amendment to ORS 197.015, the definition section of Oregon’s land use laws.”

Estremado v. Jackson Cnty., 934 P.2d 515 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Murphy Citizens Advisory Comm. v. Josephine Cnty., 909 P.2d 180 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(d)(A) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(d)(B) — 4 cases

State ex rel. Coastal Mgmt., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 36 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Estremado v. Jackson Cnty., 934 P.2d 515 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Murphy Citizens Advisory Comm. v. Josephine Cnty., 909 P.2d 180 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(e) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(e)(B) — 2 cases

State ex rel. Coastal Mgmt., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 36 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cty. (A183568) (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10)(e)(C) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(10Kb) — 1 case

Tirumali v. City of Portland, 7 P.3d 761 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(11) — 22 cases

Woodard v. City of Cottage Grove, 201 P.3d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

State ex rel. Coastal Mgmt., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 36 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Dunn v. City of Redmond, 735 P.2d 609 (Or. 1987).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(11)(a)(A) — 1 case

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. City of Beaverton, 161 P.3d 926 (Or. 2007).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(12) — 17 cases

Friends of Yamhill Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners, 238 P.3d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene, 273 P.3d 219 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Woodard v. City of Cottage Grove, 201 P.3d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Wright v. KECH-TV, 707 P.2d 1232 (Or. 1985).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(12)(a) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(12)(a)(A) — 2 cases

Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Backer v. City of Salem, 325 Or. App. 809 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(12)(a)(B) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(12)(b) — 1 case

Fechtig v. City of Albany, 882 P.2d 138 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(13) — 2 cases

Woodard v. City of Cottage Grove, 201 P.3d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

LandWatch Lane Cnty. v. Lane Cnty. (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(14) — 5 cases

Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 323 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

Marks v. LCDC, 536 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “The IGAs are not stat- utory land use decisions [under ORS 197.015], but they are significant impacts test land use decisions.”

Jefferson Landfill Comm. v. Marion Cnty., 686 P.2d 310 (Or. 1984).

Hous. Land Advocates v. LCDC, 492 P.3d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Ochoco Constr., Inc. v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 641 P.2d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(15) — 1 case

Jackson Cnty. v. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth., 645 P.2d 532 (Or. 1982).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(16) — 2 cases

City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(18) — 4 cases

Utsey v. Coos Cnty., 32 P.3d 933 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

State v. Crook Cnty., 256 P.3d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 258 P.3d 1269 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

Utsey v. Coos Cnty., 32 P.3d 933 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(4) — 7 cases

South of Sunnyside Neighborhood League v. Bd. of Commissioners, 569 P.2d 1063 (Or. 1977).

Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 533 P.2d 772 (Or. 1975).

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 575 P.2d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

Green v. Hayward, 552 P.2d 815 (Or. 1976).

Commonwealth Props., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 582 P.2d 1384 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(5) — 23 cases

Younger v. City of Portland, 752 P.2d 262 (Or. 1988). “" ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A)(ii), (iii). [3] The quotation is from a discussion of the city's findings regarding traffic effects.”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 642 P.2d 1158 (Or. 1982).

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson Co., 718 P.2d 753 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Jackson Cnty. v. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth., 645 P.2d 532 (Or. 1982).

Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia Cnty., 443 P.3d 1184 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(6) — 1 case

VinCEP v. Yamhill Cnty., 171 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(7) — 1 case

Neuberger v. City of Portland, 603 P.2d 771 (Or. 1979).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(8) — 10 cases

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).

Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991).

Downtown Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Portland, 722 P.2d 1258 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Woodard v. City of Cottage Grove, 201 P.3d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(9) — 6 cases

1000 Friends of Or. v. Jackson Cnty., 423 P.3d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Hunnicutt v. Myers, 171 P.3d 349 (Or. 2007).

Downtown Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Portland, 722 P.2d 1258 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 243 P.3d 830 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Audubon Soc'y of Portland v. Oregon Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 681 P.2d 135 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(b) — 1 case

Southwood Homeowners Ass'n v. City Council of Philomath, 806 P.2d 162 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.015(l)(a)(B) — 1 case

Southcentral Ass'n of Neighbors v. City of Salem, 355 P.3d 208 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).

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.