Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.495

Effective date of certain annexations; nonapplicability of certain health hazard annexation procedures

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

      199.495 Effective date of certain annexations; nonapplicability of certain health hazard annexation procedures. In a proceeding initiated as provided by ORS 199.490 (2) and (5):

      (1) If the proposed annexation is approved by the commission, the final order shall be effective at the time specified in the final order except that the effective date for an annexation initiated as provided by ORS 199.490 (5) shall not be more than one year after the date the final order is adopted and for an annexation initiated as provided by ORS 199.490 (2) shall not be more than 10 years after the date the final order is adopted. If no effective date is specified in the final order, the order shall take effect on the date the order is adopted. The order shall not be subject to ORS 199.505.

      (2) ORS 222.883 to 222.896, 222.900 (1) and (3) and 222.915 do not apply to proceedings initiated by the findings of the Director of the Oregon Health Authority. [1969 c.494 §16a; 1971 c.462 §15; 1975 c.157 §1; 1975 c.639 §19; 1979 c.374 §4; 1979 c.880 §2; 1983 c.407 §11; 1991 c.637 §7; 2009 c.595 §178]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1975–2006 · leading case: Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. City of Portland
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. City of Portland (1990) or · cites it 3× “” 4 ORS 199.495 provides: “In a proceeding initiated as provided by ORS 199.”
Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. City of Portland (1989) orctapp · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs argue that section 3 suffers from the same defect, because some of the annexations that it validates were initiated through the triple majority procedure.”
Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission (1987) or · cites it 2× “Opponents of the annexations sought judicial review in the Court of Appeals, and that court held that “ORS 199.495(1), as it relates to annexations initiated pursuant to ORS 199.”
Rivergate Residents Ass'n v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission (1984) orctapp “ORS 199.495(1). Because petitioner’s members’ property was excluded from the annexation, it lacks the requisite “injury in fact” to challenge the approved annexation.”
Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission (1987) orctapp · cites it 2× “3 Second, if a city receives the consent of the “triple *197 majority” of the landowners in the territory, it may pass a resolution to annex, and an order of the boundary commission approving annexation is final and not subject to an election, regardless of whether objections…”
Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission (1987) orctapp · cites it 2× “The only infirmity in the statutory annexation scheme is that the “triple majority” consent process permits, and is a prerequisite to, annexation without an election by virtue of ORS 199.495(1). It is that statute which provides that a “triple majority” annexation is not subject…”
Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission (1991) orctapp · cites it 2× “It is not subject to the vote of the electors in the territory regardless of whether objections were filed under the provisions of the statute (ORS 199.495). “ORS 199.490 treats landowners differently than electors.”
Peterson v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission (1975) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 199.495(1) ② -expressly so provides. The obvious intent of the legislature in establishing this exception to the election procedures of ORS 199.”
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. City of Beaverton (2006) orctapp “ORS 199.495(1). Because petitioner’s members’ property was excluded from the annexation, it lacks the requisite ‘injury in fact’ to challenge the approved annexation.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.495(1) — 7 cases
Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. City of Portland (1990) or “” 4 ORS 199.495 provides: “In a proceeding initiated as provided by ORS 199.”
Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission (1987) or “Opponents of the annexations sought judicial review in the Court of Appeals, and that court held that “ORS 199.495(1), as it relates to annexations initiated pursuant to ORS 199.”
Rivergate Residents Ass'n v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission (1984) orctapp “ORS 199.495(1). Because petitioner’s members’ property was excluded from the annexation, it lacks the requisite “injury in fact” to challenge the approved annexation.”
Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. City of Portland (1989) orctapp “Plaintiffs argue that section 3 suffers from the same defect, because some of the annexations that it validates were initiated through the triple majority procedure.”
Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission (1987) orctapp “The only infirmity in the statutory annexation scheme is that the “triple majority” consent process permits, and is a prerequisite to, annexation without an election by virtue of ORS 199.495(1). It is that statute which provides that a “triple majority” annexation is not subject…”
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.