197.855
Deadline for final court order; exceptions. (1) The Court of Appeals shall issue a final order on
a petition for review filed under ORS 197.850 within 91 days after oral
argument on the petition.
(2) The following
periods of delay shall be excluded from the 91-day period within which the
court must issue a final order on a petition:
(a) Any period of
delay resulting from a motion properly before the court; or
(b) Any
reasonable period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court on
the court’s own motion or at the request of one of the parties, if the court
granted the continuance on the basis of findings that the ends of justice
served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and
the parties in having a decision within 91 days.
(3) No period of
delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court under subsection (2)(b)
of this section shall be excludable under this section unless the court sets forth,
in the record, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the
ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests
of the public and the other parties in a decision within the 91 days. The
factors the court shall consider in determining whether to grant a continuance
under subsection (2)(b) of this section in any case are as follows:
(a) Whether the
failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a
continuation of the proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage of
justice; or
(b) Whether the
case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of parties or the existence
of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate
consideration of the issues within the 91-day time limit.
(4) No
continuance under subsection (2)(b) of this section shall be granted because of
general congestion of the court calendar or lack of diligent preparation or
attention to the case by any member of the court or any party. [1983 c.827 §35a]
Notes of Decisions
Simon v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 755 P.2d 741 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “850; ORS 197.855. Construing ORS 215.428(7) to continue jurisdiction in the circuit court after a governing body has acted, even belatedly, would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme.”
VanSpeybroeck v. Tillamook Cnty., 191 P.3d 712 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“830(14), and this court, ORS 197.855(1). That statutory framework suggests that issues he preserved at the local government level for board review, and at LUBA level for judicial review, in sufficient detail to allow a thorough examination of the issue by the decision-maker, so…”
Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene, 273 P.3d 219 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“830(14), and this court, ORS 197.855(1). That statutory framework suggests that issues be preserved at the local government level for board review, and at LUBA level for judicial review, in sufficient detail to allow a thorough examination of the issue by the decision-maker, so…”
Doney v. Clatsop Cnty., 921 P.2d 1346 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“805 to ORS 197.855.” Id. at 242 . In its opening brief, the county explains how it considers this case and Mill-Maple to be analogous: “The ‘land use decision’ in [.”
Waste Not of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 246 P.3d 493 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“830(14), and this court, ORS 197.855(1). That statutory framework suggests that issues be preserved at the local government level for board review, and at LUBA level for judicial review, in sufficient detail to allow a thorough examination of the issue by the decision-maker, so…”
City of Oregon v. Mill-Maple Props., Inc., 779 P.2d 172 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“We understand the statutory scheme differently. If the opposed action takes the form of or is permitted by a land use decision, the exclusive avenue of review is to LUBA and then to this court, in accordance with ORS 197.”
Friends of Eugene v. City of Eugene, 96 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“”); ORS 197.855(1) (providing that, generally, “[t]he Court of Appeals shall issue a final order on a petition for review filed under ORS 197.”
Maguire v. Clackamas Cnty., 279 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“850(10) — that is, generally, “within 91 days after oral argument,” ORS 197.855(1) If a petitioner has any doubt regarding whether LUBA or the circuit court has jurisdiction, then the prudent practice is to file a notice of appeal with LUBA and a writ of review with the circuit…”
Edney v. Columbia Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 849 P.2d 1125 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“850; ORS 197.855. “Construing ORS 215.428(7) to continue jurisdiction in the circuit court after a governing body has acted, even belatedly, would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme.”
Blatt v. City of Portland, 819 P.2d 309 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “” ORS 197.855(1) requires this court to complete review of LUBA cases within 91 days after argument.”
Lyday v. Liberty Nw. Ins., 839 P.2d 756 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“, ORS 197.855. Failure to comply with the statute may subject the referee to mandamus, for example, but it does not deprive the referee of the power to act.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.855(1) — 7 cases
VanSpeybroeck v. Tillamook Cnty., 191 P.3d 712 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“830(14), and this court, ORS 197.855(1). That statutory framework suggests that issues he preserved at the local government level for board review, and at LUBA level for judicial review, in sufficient detail to allow a thorough examination of the issue by the decision-maker, so…”
Willamette Oaks, LLC v. City of Eugene, 273 P.3d 219 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“830(14), and this court, ORS 197.855(1). That statutory framework suggests that issues be preserved at the local government level for board review, and at LUBA level for judicial review, in sufficient detail to allow a thorough examination of the issue by the decision-maker, so…”
Waste Not of Yamhill Cnty. v. Yamhill Cnty., 246 P.3d 493 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“830(14), and this court, ORS 197.855(1). That statutory framework suggests that issues be preserved at the local government level for board review, and at LUBA level for judicial review, in sufficient detail to allow a thorough examination of the issue by the decision-maker, so…”
Friends of Eugene v. City of Eugene, 96 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“”); ORS 197.855(1) (providing that, generally, “[t]he Court of Appeals shall issue a final order on a petition for review filed under ORS 197.”
Maguire v. Clackamas Cnty., 279 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“850(10) — that is, generally, “within 91 days after oral argument,” ORS 197.855(1) If a petitioner has any doubt regarding whether LUBA or the circuit court has jurisdiction, then the prudent practice is to file a notice of appeal with LUBA and a writ of review with the circuit…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.855(2)(b) — 1 case
Blatt v. City of Portland, 819 P.2d 309 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“” ORS 197.855(1) requires this court to complete review of LUBA cases within 91 days after argument.”
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.