215.429 Writ
of mandamus authorized after deadline for final action; jurisdiction; process. (1) If the governing body of the
county or its designee does not take final action on an application within the
period allowed under ORS 215.427, the applicant may file a petition for a writ
of mandamus under ORS 34.130 in the circuit court of the county where the
application was submitted to compel the governing body or its designee to issue
the approval.
(2) The governing
body shall retain jurisdiction to make a land use decision on the application
until a petition for a writ of mandamus is filed. Upon filing a petition under
ORS 34.130, jurisdiction for all decisions regarding the application, including
settlement, shall be with the circuit court.
(3) A person who
files a petition for a writ of mandamus under this section shall provide
written notice of the filing to all persons who would be entitled to notice
under ORS 197.797 and to any person who participated orally or in writing in
any evidentiary hearing on the application held prior to the filing of the
petition. The notice shall be mailed or hand delivered on the same day the
petition is filed.
(4) If the
governing body does not take final action on an application within the period
allowed under ORS 215.427, the applicant may elect to proceed with the
application according to the applicable provisions of the county comprehensive
plan and land use regulations or to file a petition for a writ of mandamus
under this section. If the applicant elects to proceed according to the local
plan and regulations, the applicant may not file a petition for a writ of
mandamus within 14 days after the governing body makes a preliminary decision,
provided a final written decision is issued within 14 days of the preliminary
decision.
(5) The court
shall issue a peremptory writ unless the governing body or any intervenor shows
that the approval would violate a substantive provision of the county
comprehensive plan or land use regulations as those terms are defined in ORS
197.015. The writ may specify conditions of approval that would otherwise be
allowed by the county comprehensive plan or land use regulations. [1999 c.533 §7;
1999 c.393 §5; 2025 c.476 §41]
215.430 [1955 c.682 §2; repealed by 1971
c.13 §1]
Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. Schrodt v. Jackson Cnty., 324 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 30× “The trial court entered a judgment granting mandamus relief to respondent Gary Schrodt under ORS 215.429. 1 The judgment ordered Jackson County (the county) to approve Schrodt’s land use application, which requested that the county broaden the categories of commercial uses…”
Kine v. Deschutes Cnty., 496 P.3d 1136 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “2 Although petitioner initially sought the approval of 10 parcels, county staff determined that, if petitioner’s theory were correct, the result would be the cre- ation of 11 unplatted remainder parcels and modified petitioner’s application accordingly.”
State ex rel. Oregon Pipeline Co. v. Clatsop Cnty., 288 P.3d 1024 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 11× “Appellant Oregon Pipeline (Pipeline) appeals from a circuit court judgment dismissing its petition for a writ of mandamus, brought under ORS 215.429, in which it sought to compel respondent Clatsop County (the county) to approve Pipeline’s application for a land use approval of…”
State ex rel. Coastal Mgmt., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 36 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “178 after a petition for a writ of mandamus has been filed under ORS 215.429 or 227.179.” 6 ORS 215.429(2) provides that the local governing body retains jurisdiction to make a land use decision on the application “until a petition for a writ of mandamus is filed.”
State ex rel Kine v. Deschutes Cnty., 477 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 17× “Three homeowners’ associations (HOAs) inter- vened and, on their motion, the trial court dismissed the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. It later entered a supplemental judgment awarding attorney fees to the HOAs.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop Cnty., 341 P.3d 790 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “However, five days before the hearing, OPC filed a petition for writ of mandamus under ORS 215.429 with the Clatsop County Circuit Court, arguing that the county’s withdrawal decision led to a violation of ORS 215.”
State ex rel. O'Connor v. Helm, 359 P.3d 550 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 10× “See generally ORS 215.429 (authorizing a mandamus remedy when the county fails to take timely action on a permit application).”
Icon Groupe, LLC v. Washington Cnty., 948 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (D. Or. 2013).
· cites it 2× “427(1)” and that “Icon timely petitioned for writs of mandamus under ORS 215.429 before any final action by the County, asking Washington County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon to compel approval of all 17 sign applications.”
Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cty. (A183568) (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 14× “427 and ORS 215.429. Based on the timing of the filing of the mandamus action, LUBA concluded that it did not have jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the circuit court.”
Landwatch Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 415 P.3d 1064 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“429(5), when a local government fails to take final action on a land use decision within the required time, an applicant may obtain a peremptory writ of mandamus to approve the application "unless the governing body or any intervenor shows that the approval would violate a…”
State ex rel. Icon Groupe, LLC v. Washington Cnty., 359 P.3d 269 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 15× “This case concerns the land-use mandamus process authorized under ORS 215.429 when a county does not take final action on an application for a development permit within 120 days after the application is deemed complete.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.429(1) — 7 cases
State ex rel. Schrodt v. Jackson Cnty., 324 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“The trial court entered a judgment granting mandamus relief to respondent Gary Schrodt under ORS 215.429. 1 The judgment ordered Jackson County (the county) to approve Schrodt’s land use application, which requested that the county broaden the categories of commercial uses…”
State ex rel. Coastal Mgmt., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 36 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“178 after a petition for a writ of mandamus has been filed under ORS 215.429 or 227.179.” 6 ORS 215.429(2) provides that the local governing body retains jurisdiction to make a land use decision on the application “until a petition for a writ of mandamus is filed.”
State ex rel. Oregon Pipeline Co. v. Clatsop Cnty., 288 P.3d 1024 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Appellant Oregon Pipeline (Pipeline) appeals from a circuit court judgment dismissing its petition for a writ of mandamus, brought under ORS 215.429, in which it sought to compel respondent Clatsop County (the county) to approve Pipeline’s application for a land use approval of…”
State ex rel Kine v. Deschutes Cnty., 477 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Three homeowners’ associations (HOAs) inter- vened and, on their motion, the trial court dismissed the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. It later entered a supplemental judgment awarding attorney fees to the HOAs.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.429(2) — 3 cases
State ex rel. Coastal Mgmt., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 36 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“178 after a petition for a writ of mandamus has been filed under ORS 215.429 or 227.179.” 6 ORS 215.429(2) provides that the local governing body retains jurisdiction to make a land use decision on the application “until a petition for a writ of mandamus is filed.”
Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cty. (A183568) (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“427 and ORS 215.429. Based on the timing of the filing of the mandamus action, LUBA concluded that it did not have jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the circuit court.”
State ex rel. O'Connor v. Helm, 359 P.3d 550 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“See generally ORS 215.429 (authorizing a mandamus remedy when the county fails to take timely action on a permit application).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.429(3) — 1 case
Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cty. (A183568) (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“427 and ORS 215.429. Based on the timing of the filing of the mandamus action, LUBA concluded that it did not have jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the circuit court.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.429(4) — 3 cases
State ex rel. O'Connor v. Helm, 359 P.3d 550 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“See generally ORS 215.429 (authorizing a mandamus remedy when the county fails to take timely action on a permit application).”
Cent. Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes Cty. (A183568) (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“427 and ORS 215.429. Based on the timing of the filing of the mandamus action, LUBA concluded that it did not have jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the circuit court.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 215.429(5) — 5 cases
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop Cnty., 341 P.3d 790 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“However, five days before the hearing, OPC filed a petition for writ of mandamus under ORS 215.429 with the Clatsop County Circuit Court, arguing that the county’s withdrawal decision led to a violation of ORS 215.”
Landwatch Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 415 P.3d 1064 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“429(5), when a local government fails to take final action on a land use decision within the required time, an applicant may obtain a peremptory writ of mandamus to approve the application "unless the governing body or any intervenor shows that the approval would violate a…”
State ex rel Kine v. Deschutes Cnty., 477 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“Three homeowners’ associations (HOAs) inter- vened and, on their motion, the trial court dismissed the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. It later entered a supplemental judgment awarding attorney fees to the HOAs.”
State ex rel. O'Connor v. Helm, 359 P.3d 550 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“See generally ORS 215.429 (authorizing a mandamus remedy when the county fails to take timely action on a permit application).”
State ex rel. Icon Groupe, LLC v. Washington Cnty., 359 P.3d 269 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“This case concerns the land-use mandamus process authorized under ORS 215.429 when a county does not take final action on an application for a development permit within 120 days after the application is deemed complete.”
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.