Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.651

Appeal to Court of Appeals for judicial review of final order of Land Conservation and Development Commission

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

      197.651 Appeal to Court of Appeals for judicial review of final order of Land Conservation and Development Commission. (1) Judicial review of a final order of the Land Conservation and Development Commission under ORS 197.626 concerning the designation of urban reserves under ORS 197A.245 (1)(b) or rural reserves under ORS 197A.235 is as provided in subsections (3) to (12) of this section.

      (2) Judicial review of any other final order of the commission under ORS 197.626 or of a final order of the commission under 197.180, 197.251, 197.628 to 197.651, 197.652 to 197.658, 197.659, 215.780 or 215.788 to 215.794 is as provided in subsections (3) to (7), (9), (10) and (12) of this section.

      (3) A proceeding for judicial review under this section may be instituted by filing a petition in the Court of Appeals. The petition must be filed within 21 days after the date the commission delivered or mailed the order upon which the petition is based.

      (4) The filing of the petition, as set forth in subsection (3) of this section, and service of a petition on the persons who submitted oral or written testimony in the proceeding before the commission are jurisdictional and may not be waived or extended.

      (5) The petition must state the nature of the order the petitioner seeks to have reviewed. Copies of the petition must be served by registered or certified mail upon the commission and the persons who submitted oral or written testimony in the proceeding before the commission.

      (6) Within 21 days after service of the petition, the commission shall transmit to the Court of Appeals the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding under review. However, by stipulation of the parties to the review proceeding, the record may be shortened. The Court of Appeals may tax a party that unreasonably refuses to stipulate to limit the record for the additional costs. The Court of Appeals may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record. Except as specifically provided in this subsection, the Court of Appeals may not tax the cost of the record to the petitioner or an intervening party. However, the Court of Appeals may tax the costs to a party that files a frivolous petition for judicial review.

      (7) Petitions and briefs must be filed within time periods and in a manner established by the Court of Appeals by rule.

      (8) The Court of Appeals shall:

      (a) Hear oral argument within 49 days of the date of transmittal of the record unless the Court of Appeals determines that the ends of justice served by holding oral argument on a later day outweigh the best interests of the public and the parties. However, the Court of Appeals may not hold oral argument more than 49 days after the date of transmittal of the record because of general congestion of the court calendar or lack of diligent preparation or attention to the case by a member of the court or a party.

      (b) Set forth in writing and provide to the parties a determination to hear oral argument more than 49 days from the date the record is transmitted, together with the reasons for the determination. The Court of Appeals shall schedule oral argument as soon as is practicable.

      (c) Consider, in making a determination under paragraph (b) of this subsection:

      (A) Whether the case is so unusual or complex, due to the number of parties or the existence of novel questions of law, that 49 days is an unreasonable amount of time for the parties to brief the case and for the Court of Appeals to prepare for oral argument; and

      (B) Whether the failure to hold oral argument at a later date likely would result in a miscarriage of justice.

      (9) The court:

      (a) Shall limit judicial review of an order reviewed under this section to the record.

      (b) May not substitute its judgment for that of the Land Conservation and Development Commission as to an issue of fact.

      (10) The Court of Appeals may affirm, reverse or remand an order reviewed under this section. The Court of Appeals shall reverse or remand the order only if the court finds the order is:

      (a) Unlawful in substance or procedure. However, error in procedure is not cause for reversal or remand unless the Court of Appeals determines that substantial rights of the petitioner were prejudiced.

      (b) Unconstitutional.

      (c) Not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record as to facts found by the commission.

      (11) The Court of Appeals shall issue a final order on the petition for judicial review with the greatest possible expediency.

      (12) If the order of the commission is remanded by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the commission shall respond to the court’s appellate judgment within 30 days. [2007 c.723 §9; 2011 c.469 §6]

 

COLLABORATIVE REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case: Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Development Commission
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Development Commission (2014) orctapp · cites it 11× “We note that ORS 197.651 — which was enacted in 2007 as part of SB 1011 — applied to the judicial review of LCDC orders designating urban and rural reserves under the provisions of that bill.”
Katherine Blumenkron v. Multnomah County (2024) ca9 · cites it 6× “Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.651 . The Court of Appeals must limit judicial review to the administrative record and “[m]ay not substitute its judgment for that of the Land Conservation and Development Commission as to an issue of fact.”
Zimmerman v. Land Conservation & Development Commission (2015) orctapp · cites it 7× “A final LCDC order approving a UGB amendment “may be appealed to the Court of Appeals in the manner described in ORS 197.”
Stop Dump Coalition v. Yamhill County (2017) orctapp “850(9)(a)—and, by analogy, for review of LCDC orders under ORS 197.651(10)—is for ‘a mistaken interpretation of the applicable law.”
Housing Land Advocates v. LCDC (2021) orctapp · cites it 3× “” And in particular, whether Metro ran afoul of that standard when it failed to con- sider requiring “an increase in the density of single-family neighborhoods within the existing urban growth boundary” because doing so is prohibited by Metro’s Charter.”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Development Commission (2014) orctapp “As pertinent here, under the 2011 amendments, the standard of review described in ORS 197.651(10) — which is substantively akin to our standard of review of Land Use Board of Appeals orders — replaced the standard derived from the Administrative Procedures Act, which we had…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.651(10) — 5 cases
Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Development Commission (2014) orctapp “We note that ORS 197.651 — which was enacted in 2007 as part of SB 1011 — applied to the judicial review of LCDC orders designating urban and rural reserves under the provisions of that bill.”
Zimmerman v. Land Conservation & Development Commission (2015) orctapp “A final LCDC order approving a UGB amendment “may be appealed to the Court of Appeals in the manner described in ORS 197.”
Stop Dump Coalition v. Yamhill County (2017) orctapp “850(9)(a)—and, by analogy, for review of LCDC orders under ORS 197.651(10)—is for ‘a mistaken interpretation of the applicable law.”
Housing Land Advocates v. LCDC (2021) orctapp “” And in particular, whether Metro ran afoul of that standard when it failed to con- sider requiring “an increase in the density of single-family neighborhoods within the existing urban growth boundary” because doing so is prohibited by Metro’s Charter.”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Development Commission (2014) orctapp “As pertinent here, under the 2011 amendments, the standard of review described in ORS 197.651(10) — which is substantively akin to our standard of review of Land Use Board of Appeals orders — replaced the standard derived from the Administrative Procedures Act, which we had…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.651(10)(a) — 2 cases
Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Development Commission (2014) orctapp “We note that ORS 197.651 — which was enacted in 2007 as part of SB 1011 — applied to the judicial review of LCDC orders designating urban and rural reserves under the provisions of that bill.”
Zimmerman v. Land Conservation & Development Commission (2015) orctapp “A final LCDC order approving a UGB amendment “may be appealed to the Court of Appeals in the manner described in ORS 197.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.651(9)(a) — 1 case
Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Development Commission (2014) orctapp “We note that ORS 197.651 — which was enacted in 2007 as part of SB 1011 — applied to the judicial review of LCDC orders designating urban and rural reserves under the provisions of that bill.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.651(9)(b) — 2 cases
Zimmerman v. Land Conservation & Development Commission (2015) orctapp “A final LCDC order approving a UGB amendment “may be appealed to the Court of Appeals in the manner described in ORS 197.”
Housing Land Advocates v. LCDC (2021) orctapp “” And in particular, whether Metro ran afoul of that standard when it failed to con- sider requiring “an increase in the density of single-family neighborhoods within the existing urban growth boundary” because doing so is prohibited by Metro’s Charter.”
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.