215.185
Remedies for unlawful structures or land use. (1) In case a building or other structure is, or is
proposed to be, located, constructed, maintained, repaired, altered, or used,
or any land is, or is proposed to be, used, in violation of an ordinance or
regulation designed to implement a comprehensive plan, the governing body of
the county or a person whose interest in real property in the county is or may
be affected by the violation, may, in addition to other remedies provided by
law, institute injunction, mandamus, abatement, or other appropriate proceedings
to prevent, temporarily or permanently enjoin, abate, or remove the unlawful
location, construction, maintenance, repair, alteration, or use. When a
temporary restraining order is granted in a suit instituted by a person who is
not exempt from furnishing bonds or undertakings under ORS 22.010, the person
shall furnish undertaking as provided in ORCP 82 A(1).
(2) The court may
allow the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and expenses in a judicial
proceeding authorized by this section that involves a dwelling approved to
relieve a temporary hardship. However, if the court allows the plaintiff
reasonable attorney fees or expenses, such fees or expenses shall not be
charged to the county if the county did not actively defend itself or the
landowner in the proceeding.
(3) Nothing in
this section requires the governing body of a county or a person whose interest
in real property in the county is or may be affected to avail itself of a
remedy allowed by this section or by any other law. [1955 c.439 §7; 1963 c.619 §12;
1977 c.766 §6; 1981 c.898 §48; 1983 c.826 §5; 2001 c.225 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases, 1972–2019 · leading case:
Mehring v. Arpke, 672 P.2d 382 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
Mehring v. Arpke, 672 P.2d 382 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 20× “In October, 1981, plaintiffs brought this action to enjoin the planned development under ORS 215.185, which provides: "In case a building or other structure is, or is proposed to be, located, constructed, maintained, repaired, altered, or used, or any land is, or is proposed to…”
Cyrus v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Deschutes, 202 P.3d 274 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “185(1) (providing that a person whose interest is or may be affected by an unlawful structure or land use may "in addition to other remedies provided by law, institute injunction, mandamus, abatement, or other appropriate proceedings to prevent, temporarily or permanently…”
Parks v. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs of Tillamook Cty., 501 P.2d 85 (Or. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 4× “” ORS 215.185. Thus the principal question presented is whether the alternative writ makes a prima facie showing that intervenor’s construction project is in violation of the Tillamook County Zoning Ordinance.”
Doughton v. Douglas Cnty., 750 P.2d 1174 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “KECH-TV, 71 Or App 662, 664-65 , 694 P2d 545 , aff’d 300 Or 139 , 707 P2d 1232 (1985), cert den 476 US 1117 (1986) (discussing relationship between ORS 215.185 and LUBA jurisdictional statutes).”
Wright v. KECH-TV, 707 P.2d 1232 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 2× “185 provides in relevant part: “In case a building or other structure is, or is proposed to be, located, constructed, maintained, repaired, altered, or used, or any land is, or is proposed to be, used, in violation of an ordinance or regulation designed to implement a…”
Flight Shop, Inc. v. Leading Edge Aviation, Inc., 373 P.3d 177 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“Under ORS 215.185, a private person is authorized to bring an enforcement action if that person owns an “interest in real property” that “may be affected” by a violation of a county land use regulation.”
Wright v. KECH-TV, 694 P.2d 545 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “See ORS 215.185. 2 *665 Plaintiffs argue that ORS 215.”
Clackamas Cnty. v. Marson, 874 P.2d 110 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“Clackamas County brought this “enforcement action” under ORS 215.185 and ORS 197.825(3)(a), contending that defendant’s use of her property in an exclusive farm use (EFU) zone for the parking of log trucks violated the county’s zoning ordinance.”
Yunker v. Means, 530 P.2d 846 (Or. 1975).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs brought this suit under ORS 215.185 ① to compel defendants to remove a second story deck at the back of defendants’ house.”
City of Oregon v. Mill-Maple Props., Inc., 779 P.2d 172 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“2 We express no view about circuit court jurisdiction over matters that could arise under the agreement but are wholly unrelated to any land use decision that was or could be made, e.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.185(1) — 4 cases
Cyrus v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Deschutes, 202 P.3d 274 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“185(1) (providing that a person whose interest is or may be affected by an unlawful structure or land use may "in addition to other remedies provided by law, institute injunction, mandamus, abatement, or other appropriate proceedings to prevent, temporarily or permanently…”
Wright v. KECH-TV, 694 P.2d 545 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“See ORS 215.185. 2 *665 Plaintiffs argue that ORS 215.”
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.