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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835 (2026)

Scope of review; rules

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

      197.835 Scope of review; rules. (1)(a) The Land Use Board of Appeals shall review the land use decision or limited land use decision and prepare a final order affirming, reversing or remanding the land use decision or limited land use decision.

      (b) If a local government demonstrates that a land use decision adopting a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation contains a severability clause and specifically challenged portions of the changes may be reasonably severable from the remainder of the changes, the board may affirm in part. Reasonably severable means the remaining parts, standing alone, are complete and capable of being executed with the legislative intent. The affirmed parts are not affected by the reversal or remand, continue in effect and are considered acknowledged as described in ORS 197.625.

      (c) The board shall adopt rules defining the circumstances in which it will reverse rather than remand a land use decision or limited land use decision or part of a decision that is not affirmed.

      (2)(a) Review of a decision under ORS 197.830 to 197.845 shall be confined to the record.

      (b) In the case of disputed allegations of standing, unconstitutionality of the decision, ex parte contacts, actions described in subsection (10)(a)(B) of this section or other procedural irregularities not shown in the record that, if proved, would warrant reversal or remand, the board may take evidence and make findings of fact on those allegations. The board shall be bound by any finding of fact of the local government, special district or state agency for which there is substantial evidence in the whole record.

      (3) The board may only review issues raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.195, 197.622, 197.797 or 197A.146, whichever is applicable.

      (4) A petitioner may raise new issues to the board regarding a quasi-judicial decision made under ORS 197.195, 197.797 or 197A.146 only if:

      (a) The local government failed to list the applicable criteria for a decision under ORS 197.195 (3)(c), 197.797 (3)(b) or 197A.146 (5)(c), in which case a petitioner may raise new issues based upon applicable criteria that were omitted from the notice. However, the board may refuse to allow new issues to be raised if it finds that the issue could have been raised before the local government; or

      (b) The local government made a land use decision or limited land use decision which is different from the proposal described in the notice to such a degree that the notice of the proposed action did not reasonably describe the local government’s final action.

      (5) The board shall reverse or remand a land use decision not subject to an acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations if the decision does not comply with the goals. The board shall reverse or remand a land use decision or limited land use decision subject to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation if the decision does not comply with the goals and the Land Conservation and Development Commission has issued an order under ORS 197.320 or adopted a new or amended goal under ORS 197.245 requiring the local government to apply the goals to the type of decision being challenged.

      (6) The board shall reverse or remand an amendment to a comprehensive plan if the amendment is not in compliance with the goals.

      (7) The board shall reverse or remand an amendment to a land use regulation or the adoption of a new land use regulation if:

      (a) The regulation is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan; or

      (b) The comprehensive plan does not contain specific policies or other provisions which provide the basis for the regulation, and the regulation is not in compliance with the statewide planning goals.

      (8) The board shall reverse or remand a decision involving the application of a plan or land use regulation provision if the decision is not in compliance with applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan or land use regulations.

      (9) In addition to the review under subsections (1) to (8) of this section, the board shall reverse or remand the land use decision under review if the board finds:

      (a) The local government or special district:

      (A) Exceeded its jurisdiction;

      (B) Failed to follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner;

      (C) Made a decision not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record;

      (D) Improperly construed the applicable law; or

      (E) Made an unconstitutional decision; or

      (b) The state agency made a decision that violated the goals.

      (10)(a) The board shall reverse a local government decision and order the local government to grant approval of an application for development denied by the local government if the board finds:

      (A) Based on the evidence in the record, that the local government decision is outside the range of discretion allowed the local government under its comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances; or

      (B) That the local government’s action was for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of ORS 215.427 or 227.178.

      (b) If the board does reverse the decision and orders the local government to grant approval of the application, the board shall award attorney fees to the applicant and against the local government.

      (11)(a) Whenever the findings, order and record are sufficient to allow review, and to the extent possible consistent with the time requirements of ORS 197.830 (14), the board shall decide all issues presented to it when reversing or remanding a land use decision described in subsections (2) to (9) of this section or limited land use decision described in ORS 197.828 and 197.195.

      (b) Whenever the findings are defective because of failure to recite adequate facts or legal conclusions or failure to adequately identify the standards or their relation to the facts, but the parties identify relevant evidence in the record which clearly supports the decision or a part of the decision, the board shall affirm the decision or the part of the decision supported by the record and remand the remainder to the local government, with direction indicating appropriate remedial action.

      (12) The board may reverse or remand a land use decision under review due to ex parte contacts or bias resulting from ex parte contacts with a member of the decision-making body, only if the member of the decision-making body did not comply with ORS 215.422 (3) or 227.180 (3), whichever is applicable.

      (13) Subsection (12) of this section does not apply to reverse or remand of a land use decision due to ex parte contact or bias resulting from ex parte contact with a hearings officer.

      (14) The board shall reverse or remand a land use decision or limited land use decision which violates a commission order issued under ORS 197.328.

      (15) In cases in which a local government provides a quasi-judicial land use hearing on a limited land use decision, the requirements of subsections (12) and (13) of this section apply.

      (16) The board may decide cases before it by means of memorandum decisions and shall prepare full opinions only in such cases as it deems proper. [1983 c.827 §§32,32a; 1985 c.811 §15; 1987 c.729 §2; 1989 c.648 §57; 1989 c.761 §13; 1991 c.817 §13; 1995 c.595 §§3a,5; 1995 c.812 §5; 1997 c.844 §3; 1999 c.621 §7; 2023 c.551 §3; 2025 c.330 §5]

 

      Note: The amendments to 197.835 by section 5, chapter 330, Oregon Laws 2025, become operative July 1, 2026. See section 6, chapter 330, Oregon Laws 2025. The text that is operative until July 1, 2026, is set forth for the user’s convenience.

 

      197.835. (1)(a) The Land Use Board of Appeals shall review the land use decision or limited land use decision and prepare a final order affirming, reversing or remanding the land use decision or limited land use decision.

      (b) If a local government demonstrates that a land use decision adopting a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation contains a severability clause and specifically challenged portions of the changes may be reasonably severable from the remainder of the changes, the board may affirm in part. Reasonably severable means the remaining parts, standing alone, are complete and capable of being executed with the legislative intent. The affirmed parts are not affected by the reversal or remand, continue in effect and are considered acknowledged as described in ORS 197.625.

      (c) The board shall adopt rules defining the circumstances in which it will reverse rather than remand a land use decision or limited land use decision or part of a decision that is not affirmed.

      (2)(a) Review of a decision under ORS 197.830 to 197.845 shall be confined to the record.

      (b) In the case of disputed allegations of standing, unconstitutionality of the decision, ex parte contacts, actions described in subsection (10)(a)(B) of this section or other procedural irregularities not shown in the record that, if proved, would warrant reversal or remand, the board may take evidence and make findings of fact on those allegations. The board shall be bound by any finding of fact of the local government, special district or state agency for which there is substantial evidence in the whole record.

      (3) The board may only review issues raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.195, 197.622 or 197.797, whichever is applicable.

      (4) A petitioner may raise new issues to the board regarding a quasi-judicial decision made under ORS 197.195 or 197.797 only if:

      (a) The local government failed to list the applicable criteria for a decision under ORS 197.195 (3)(c) or 197.797 (3)(b), in which case a petitioner may raise new issues based upon applicable criteria that were omitted from the notice. However, the board may refuse to allow new issues to be raised if it finds that the issue could have been raised before the local government; or

      (b) The local government made a land use decision or limited land use decision which is different from the proposal described in the notice to such a degree that the notice of the proposed action did not reasonably describe the local government’s final action.

      (5) The board shall reverse or remand a land use decision not subject to an acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations if the decision does not comply with the goals. The board shall reverse or remand a land use decision or limited land use decision subject to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation if the decision does not comply with the goals and the Land Conservation and Development Commission has issued an order under ORS 197.320 or adopted a new or amended goal under ORS 197.245 requiring the local government to apply the goals to the type of decision being challenged.

      (6) The board shall reverse or remand an amendment to a comprehensive plan if the amendment is not in compliance with the goals.

      (7) The board shall reverse or remand an amendment to a land use regulation or the adoption of a new land use regulation if:

      (a) The regulation is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan; or

      (b) The comprehensive plan does not contain specific policies or other provisions which provide the basis for the regulation, and the regulation is not in compliance with the statewide planning goals.

      (8) The board shall reverse or remand a decision involving the application of a plan or land use regulation provision if the decision is not in compliance with applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan or land use regulations.

      (9) In addition to the review under subsections (1) to (8) of this section, the board shall reverse or remand the land use decision under review if the board finds:

      (a) The local government or special district:

      (A) Exceeded its jurisdiction;

      (B) Failed to follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner;

      (C) Made a decision not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record;

      (D) Improperly construed the applicable law; or

      (E) Made an unconstitutional decision; or

      (b) The state agency made a decision that violated the goals.

      (10)(a) The board shall reverse a local government decision and order the local government to grant approval of an application for development denied by the local government if the board finds:

      (A) Based on the evidence in the record, that the local government decision is outside the range of discretion allowed the local government under its comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances; or

      (B) That the local government’s action was for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of ORS 215.427 or 227.178.

      (b) If the board does reverse the decision and orders the local government to grant approval of the application, the board shall award attorney fees to the applicant and against the local government.

      (11)(a) Whenever the findings, order and record are sufficient to allow review, and to the extent possible consistent with the time requirements of ORS 197.830 (14), the board shall decide all issues presented to it when reversing or remanding a land use decision described in subsections (2) to (9) of this section or limited land use decision described in ORS 197.828 and 197.195.

      (b) Whenever the findings are defective because of failure to recite adequate facts or legal conclusions or failure to adequately identify the standards or their relation to the facts, but the parties identify relevant evidence in the record which clearly supports the decision or a part of the decision, the board shall affirm the decision or the part of the decision supported by the record and remand the remainder to the local government, with direction indicating appropriate remedial action.

      (12) The board may reverse or remand a land use decision under review due to ex parte contacts or bias resulting from ex parte contacts with a member of the decision-making body, only if the member of the decision-making body did not comply with ORS 215.422 (3) or 227.180 (3), whichever is applicable.

      (13) Subsection (12) of this section does not apply to reverse or remand of a land use decision due to ex parte contact or bias resulting from ex parte contact with a hearings officer.

      (14) The board shall reverse or remand a land use decision or limited land use decision which violates a commission order issued under ORS 197.328.

      (15) In cases in which a local government provides a quasi-judicial land use hearing on a limited land use decision, the requirements of subsections (12) and (13) of this section apply.

      (16) The board may decide cases before it by means of memorandum decisions and shall prepare full opinions only in such cases as it deems proper.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 200 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Younger v. City of Portland, 752 P.2d 262 (Or. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Younger v. City of Portland, 752 P.2d 262 (Or. 1988). · cites it 26× “We hold to the contrary that ORS 197.835(8) (a) (C) requires LUBA to evaluate substantiality on the basis of the entire record.”
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 35× “ORS 197.835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.”
Siporen v. City of Medford, 243 P.3d 776 (Or. 2010). · cites it 11× “829(1), Oregon’s appellate courts treated the question of whether a local land use decision “improperly construed applicable law,” for purposes of former ORS 197.835(7)(a)(D) (the predecessor to ORS 197.”
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 16× “ORS 197.835 sets out LUBA’s scope of review.”
Grabhorn v. Washington Cnty., 379 P.3d 796 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 9× “Applicable Standards of Review We begin with the standard applicable to LUBA’s review of the county’s decision, which is set out in ORS 197.835. That statute, as pertinent here, provides that LUBA must reverse or remand a land use decision if it concludes that the local…”
Beck v. City of Tillamook, 831 P.2d 678 (Or. 1992). · cites it 5× “ORS 197.835, which governs LUBA’s scope of review, provides in part: “(9) (a) Whenever the findings, order and record are sufficient to allow review, and to the extent possible *152 consistent with the time requirements of ORS 197.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson Co., 718 P.2d 753 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 8× “Yamhill County, 72 Or App 224 , 696 P2d 536 , rev den 299 Or 443 (1985), that comprehensive plan amendments are reviewable for goal compliance under ORS 197.835 and that the holding in Byrd v.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985). · cites it 4× “” ORS 197.835(11) authorizes LUBA to “reverse or remand a land use decision under review due to ex parte contacts or bias resulting from ex parte contact with a member of the decision-making body if the member of the decision-making body did not comply with ORS 215.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop Cnty., 341 P.3d 790 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 13× “ORS 197.835 provides, in relevant part: “(10)(a) The board shall reverse a local government decision and order the local government to grant approval of an application for development denied by the local government if the board finds: «* * * * * “(B) That the local government’s…”
Citizens for Responsibility v. Lane Cnty., 180 P.3d 35 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “’ ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C). A finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence if the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make that finding.”
West Linn Corp. Park, L.L.C. v. City of West Linn, 240 P.3d 29 (Or. 2010). · cites it 4× “829(1)(c) (LUBA shall affirm local government's interpretation of a regulation unless that interpretation is inconsistent with underlying policy of comprehensive plan or *39 land use regulation); ORS 197.835(2)(b) (LUBA bound by any findings of fact of the local government for…”
Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 911 P.2d 350 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “829(l)(d) when, however phrased, the argument necessarily depends on the thesis that the acknowledged local land use legislation itself does not comply with a goal or rule, and when a direct contention that the acknowledged legislation is contrary to the goal or rule could not…”
Show all 200 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(1) — 10 cases
Towey v. City of Hood River, 516 P.3d 738 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
1000 Friends of Or. v. Jackson Cnty., 423 P.3d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
McKay Creek Valley Ass'n v. Washington Cnty., 848 P.2d 624 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
Devin Oil Co. v. Morrow Cnty., 286 P.3d 925 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 197.835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(10) — 4 cases
Newcomer v. Clackamas Cnty., 758 P.2d 369 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
Horizon Constr., Inc. v. City of Newberg, 834 P.2d 523 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
Stewart v. City of Salem, 247 P.3d 763 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Morse Bros. v. Columbia Cnty., 996 P.2d 1023 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(10)(a) — 4 cases
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 197.835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.”
Waveseer of Oregon, LLC v. Deschutes Cnty., 482 P.3d 212 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Miller v. Multnomah Cnty., 956 P.2d 209 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
West Coast Media, LLC v. City of Gladstone, 84 P.3d 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(10)(a)(A) — 4 cases
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 197.835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.”
Waveseer of Oregon, LLC v. Deschutes Cnty., 482 P.3d 212 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Juniper Institue, LLC v. Deschutes Cnty., 341 Or. App. 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Juniper Inst., LLC v. Deschutes Cnty., 341 Or. App. 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(10)(a)(B) — 2 cases
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop Cnty., 341 P.3d 790 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “ORS 197.835 provides, in relevant part: “(10)(a) The board shall reverse a local government decision and order the local government to grant approval of an application for development denied by the local government if the board finds: «* * * * * “(B) That the local government’s…”
Miller v. Multnomah Cnty., 956 P.2d 209 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(10)(b) — 4 cases
Newcomer v. Clackamas Cnty., 758 P.2d 369 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
Stewart v. City of Salem, 247 P.3d 763 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Stewart v. City of Salem, 247 P.3d 763 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Miller v. Multnomah Cnty., 956 P.2d 209 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(11) — 5 cases
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985). “” ORS 197.835(11) authorizes LUBA to “reverse or remand a land use decision under review due to ex parte contacts or bias resulting from ex parte contact with a member of the decision-making body if the member of the decision-making body did not comply with ORS 215.”
Hatley v. Umatilla Cnty., 301 P.3d 920 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 197.835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.”
Gordon v. Clackamas Cnty., 698 P.2d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
Setniker v. Polk Cnty., 260 P.3d 800 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(11)(a) — 7 cases
Redside Restoration v. Deschutes Cnty., 344 Or. App. 383 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Haugen v. City of Scappoose, 545 P.3d 760 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Redside Restoration v. Deschutes Cnty., 344 Or. App. 383 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Schwerdt v. City of Corvallis, 987 P.2d 1243 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs v. Deschutes Cty. (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(11)(b) — 2 cases
Riverbend Landfill Co. v. Yamhill Cnty., 497 P.3d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
West Coast Media, LLC v. City of Gladstone, 84 P.3d 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(16) — 4 cases
Petrie v. City of Lake Oswego, 911 P.2d 346 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
Hillyer's Mid-City Ford, Inc. v. City of Woodburn, 965 P.2d 474 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
Jebousek v. City of Newport, 935 P.2d 452 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
Testa v. Clackamas Cnty., 911 P.2d 348 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(2) — 17 cases
Rogue Advocates v. Jackson Cnty., 385 P.3d 1262 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
Boldt v. Clackamas Cnty., 813 P.2d 1078 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
Nicita v. City of Oregon City, 399 P.3d 1087 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia Cnty., 443 P.3d 1184 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
Grabhorn v. Washington Cnty., 379 P.3d 796 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Applicable Standards of Review We begin with the standard applicable to LUBA’s review of the county’s decision, which is set out in ORS 197.835. That statute, as pertinent here, provides that LUBA must reverse or remand a land use decision if it concludes that the local…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(2)(a) — 3 cases
Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. City of Beaverton, 138 P.3d 23 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Friends of Eugene v. City of Eugene, 96 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
Cogan v. City of Beaverton, 203 P.3d 303 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(2)(b) — 9 cases
West Linn Corp. Park, L.L.C. v. City of West Linn, 240 P.3d 29 (Or. 2010). “829(1)(c) (LUBA shall affirm local government's interpretation of a regulation unless that interpretation is inconsistent with underlying policy of comprehensive plan or *39 land use regulation); ORS 197.835(2)(b) (LUBA bound by any findings of fact of the local government for…”
Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. City of Beaverton, 138 P.3d 23 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop Cnty., 243 P.3d 82 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
Friends of Eugene v. City of Eugene, 96 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene, 261 P.3d 85 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(3) — 23 cases
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 197.835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.”
Hatley v. Umatilla Cnty., 301 P.3d 920 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
Craven v. Jackson Cnty., 779 P.2d 1011 (Or. 1989).
Stop the Dump Coal. v. Yamhill Cnty., 435 P.3d 698 (Or. 2019).
VanSpeybroeck v. Tillamook Cnty., 191 P.3d 712 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(4) — 15 cases
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 197.835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.”
Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson Co., 718 P.2d 753 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “Yamhill County, 72 Or App 224 , 696 P2d 536 , rev den 299 Or 443 (1985), that comprehensive plan amendments are reviewable for goal compliance under ORS 197.835 and that the holding in Byrd v.”
Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 721 P.2d 870 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(4)(a) — 6 cases
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson Co., 718 P.2d 753 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “Yamhill County, 72 Or App 224 , 696 P2d 536 , rev den 299 Or 443 (1985), that comprehensive plan amendments are reviewable for goal compliance under ORS 197.835 and that the holding in Byrd v.”
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 197.835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.”
PLISKA v. Umatilla Cnty., 246 P.3d 1146 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
Venable v. City of Albany, 942 P.2d 843 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
Friends of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 321 Or. App. 505 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(4)(b) — 1 case
Nicholson v. Clatsop Cnty., 941 P.2d 566 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(5) — 3 cases
Ramsey v. City of Portland, 836 P.2d 772 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 197.835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.”
State ex rel. Coastal Mgmt., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 36 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(5)(a) — 1 case
Ramsey v. City of Portland, 836 P.2d 772 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(5)(b) — 1 case
Ramsey v. City of Portland, 836 P.2d 772 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(6) — 8 cases
Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991).
Opus Dev. Corp. v. City of Eugene, 918 P.2d 116 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
Dep't of Transp. v. Douglas Cnty., 967 P.2d 901 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
Jackson Cnty. Citizens' League v. Jackson Cnty., 15 P.3d 42 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
Restore Oregon v. City of Portland, 458 P.3d 703 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(7) — 5 cases
Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 706 P.2d 949 (Or. 1985).
Terraces Condo. Ass'n v. City of Portland, 823 P.2d 1004 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
Schreiner's Gardens v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 692 P.2d 660 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
Dept. of Land Conservation v. Clackamas Cnty. (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Dept. of Land Conservation v. Clackamas Cnty. (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(7)(a) — 11 cases
West Linn Corp. Park, L.L.C. v. City of West Linn, 240 P.3d 29 (Or. 2010). “829(1)(c) (LUBA shall affirm local government's interpretation of a regulation unless that interpretation is inconsistent with underlying policy of comprehensive plan or *39 land use regulation); ORS 197.835(2)(b) (LUBA bound by any findings of fact of the local government for…”
Nicita v. City of Oregon City, 507 P.3d 804 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
Clackamas Cnty. v. Marson, 874 P.2d 110 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
Hatley v. Umatilla Cnty., 301 P.3d 920 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
Diesel v. Jackson Cnty., 391 P.3d 973 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(7)(a)(B) — 6 cases
Horizon Constr., Inc. v. City of Newberg, 834 P.2d 523 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
Sunburst II Homeowners Ass'n v. City of West Linn, 790 P.2d 1213 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
Oregon City Leasing, Inc. v. Columbia Cnty., 854 P.2d 495 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
Woosley v. Marion Cnty., 846 P.2d 1170 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
Cummins v. Washington Cnty., 823 P.2d 438 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(7)(a)(C) — 3 cases
Eckis v. Linn Cnty., 821 P.2d 1127 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
Terraces Condo. Ass'n v. City of Portland, 823 P.2d 1004 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
Friends of Bryant Woods Park v. City of Lake Oswego, 868 P.2d 24 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(7)(a)(D) — 8 cases
Siporen v. City of Medford, 243 P.3d 776 (Or. 2010). “829(1), Oregon’s appellate courts treated the question of whether a local land use decision “improperly construed applicable law,” for purposes of former ORS 197.835(7)(a)(D) (the predecessor to ORS 197.”
Clark v. Jackson Cnty., 836 P.2d 710 (Or. 1994).
Reusser v. Washington Cnty., 857 P.2d 182 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
Gage v. City of Portland, 877 P.2d 1187 (Or. 1994).
Cope v. City of Cannon Beach, 836 P.2d 775 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(7)(a)(E) — 1 case
Boise Cascade Corp. v. Bd. of Forestry, 886 P.2d 1033 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(7)(b) — 1 case
Nicita v. City of Oregon City, 507 P.3d 804 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(8) — 14 cases
Younger v. City of Portland, 752 P.2d 262 (Or. 1988). “We hold to the contrary that ORS 197.835(8) (a) (C) requires LUBA to evaluate substantiality on the basis of the entire record.”
Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 911 P.2d 350 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “829(l)(d) when, however phrased, the argument necessarily depends on the thesis that the acknowledged local land use legislation itself does not comply with a goal or rule, and when a direct contention that the acknowledged legislation is contrary to the goal or rule could not…”
Dunn v. City of Redmond, 735 P.2d 609 (Or. 1987).
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985). “” ORS 197.835(11) authorizes LUBA to “reverse or remand a land use decision under review due to ex parte contacts or bias resulting from ex parte contact with a member of the decision-making body if the member of the decision-making body did not comply with ORS 215.”
Cusma v. City of Oregon City, 757 P.2d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(8)(a)(B) — 8 cases
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 742 P.2d 39 (Or. 1987).
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 723 P.2d 1034 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
Harding v. Clackamas Cnty., 750 P.2d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
Century 21 Props., Inc. v. City of Tigard, 783 P.2d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
Apalategui v. Washington Cnty., 723 P.2d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(8)(a)(C) — 11 cases
Younger v. City of Portland, 752 P.2d 262 (Or. 1988). “We hold to the contrary that ORS 197.835(8) (a) (C) requires LUBA to evaluate substantiality on the basis of the entire record.”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 752 P.2d 271 (Or. 1988).
Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 323 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
Johnson v. Civil Serv. Bd., 985 P.2d 854 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
Forman v. Clatsop Cnty., 681 P.2d 786 (Or. 1984).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(8)(a)(D) — 2 cases
West Hills & Island Neighbors, Inc. v. Multnomah Cnty., 683 P.2d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
Ludwick v. Yamhill Cnty., 696 P.2d 536 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(8)(a)(E) — 2 cases
Richard L. Martin, Inc. v. City of Lake Oswego, 684 P.2d 28 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Washington Cnty., 720 P.2d 1316 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(8)(a)(c) — 1 case
Forman v. Clatsop Cnty., 681 P.2d 786 (Or. 1984).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(9) — 11 cases
Beck v. City of Tillamook, 831 P.2d 678 (Or. 1992). “ORS 197.835, which governs LUBA’s scope of review, provides in part: “(9) (a) Whenever the findings, order and record are sufficient to allow review, and to the extent possible *152 consistent with the time requirements of ORS 197.”
Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 686 P.2d 369 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985). “” ORS 197.835(11) authorizes LUBA to “reverse or remand a land use decision under review due to ex parte contacts or bias resulting from ex parte contact with a member of the decision-making body if the member of the decision-making body did not comply with ORS 215.”
Smith v. Douglas Cnty., 763 P.2d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
Mason v. Mountain River Estates, Inc., 698 P.2d 529 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(9)(a) — 3 cases
Stop Dump Coalition v. Yamhill Cnty., 391 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “ORS 197.835 sets out LUBA’s scope of review.”
Blatt v. City of Portland, 819 P.2d 309 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(9)(a)(A) — 1 case
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “ORS 197.835 sets out LUBA’s scope of review.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(9)(a)(B) — 14 cases
Grabhorn v. Washington Cnty., 379 P.3d 796 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Applicable Standards of Review We begin with the standard applicable to LUBA’s review of the county’s decision, which is set out in ORS 197.835. That statute, as pertinent here, provides that LUBA must reverse or remand a land use decision if it concludes that the local…”
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 197.835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Oregon City, 129 P.3d 702 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Botts Marsh LLC v. City of Wheeler, 532 P.3d 544 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Trautman v. City of Eugene, 383 P.3d 420 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(9)(a)(C) — 25 cases
Citizens for Responsibility v. Lane Cnty., 180 P.3d 35 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “’ ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C). A finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence if the record, viewed as a whole, permits a reasonable person to make that finding.”
Stevens v. City of Island City, 324 P.3d 477 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
Grabhorn v. Washington Cnty., 379 P.3d 796 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Applicable Standards of Review We begin with the standard applicable to LUBA’s review of the county’s decision, which is set out in ORS 197.835. That statute, as pertinent here, provides that LUBA must reverse or remand a land use decision if it concludes that the local…”
Stop Dump Coalition v. Yamhill Cnty., 391 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “ORS 197.835 sets out LUBA’s scope of review.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(9)(a)(D) — 11 cases
Siporen v. City of Medford, 243 P.3d 776 (Or. 2010). “829(1), Oregon’s appellate courts treated the question of whether a local land use decision “improperly construed applicable law,” for purposes of former ORS 197.835(7)(a)(D) (the predecessor to ORS 197.”
Grabhorn v. Washington Cnty., 379 P.3d 796 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Applicable Standards of Review We begin with the standard applicable to LUBA’s review of the county’s decision, which is set out in ORS 197.835. That statute, as pertinent here, provides that LUBA must reverse or remand a land use decision if it concludes that the local…”
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “ORS 197.835 sets out LUBA’s scope of review.”
Green v. Douglas Cnty., 263 P.3d 355 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Gould v. Deschutes Cnty., 518 P.3d 978 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(9)(b) — 5 cases
Schaefer v. Oregon Aviation Bd., 495 P.3d 1267 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “ORS 197.835 sets out LUBA’s scope of review.”
O'Neal v. Deschutes Cnty., 867 P.2d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
Smith v. City of Portland, 814 P.2d 179 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
Riverbend Landfill Co. v. Yamhill Cnty., 497 P.3d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Friends of French Prairie v. Dept. of Aviation, 331 Or. App. 438 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(ll)(a) — 5 cases
Just v. City of Lebanon, 88 P.3d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
Cox v. Polk Cnty., 25 P.3d 970 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
GUNDERSON, LLC. v. City of Portland, 259 P.3d 1007 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Hatley v. Umatilla Cnty., 301 P.3d 920 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
Setniker v. Polk Cnty., 260 P.3d 800 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.835(ll)(b) — 3 cases
Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 323 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
Stewart v. City of Salem, 219 P.3d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 197.835 provides, in part: “(3) Issues shall be limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as provided by ORS 197.”
Green v. Douglas Cnty., 263 P.3d 355 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
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.