Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.875

Purpose and conduct of hearing; written findings of fact; rules

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

222.875 Purpose and conduct of hearing; written findings of fact; rules. (1) The hearing shall be for the sole purpose of determining whether a danger to public health exists due to conditions in the affected territory. It may be conducted by one or more members of the staff of the Oregon Health Authority to whom authority to conduct such a hearing is delegated. It shall proceed in accordance with rules which may be established by the authority. Any person who may be affected by the finding, including residents of the city, may be heard. Within 60 days following the hearing, the person conducting the hearing shall prepare and submit to the authority written findings of fact and recommendations based thereon. The authority shall publish a notice of the issuance of such findings and recommendations in the newspaper utilized for the notice of hearing under ORS 222.870, advising of the opportunity for presentation of a petition under subsection (2) of this section.

(2) Within 15 days after the publication of notice of issuance of findings in accordance with subsection (1) of this section any person who may be affected by the findings, including residents of the city, or the affected city, may petition the Director of the Oregon Health Authority according to rules of the authority to present written or oral arguments on the proposal. If a petition is received the director may set a time and place for receipt of argument. [1967 c.624 §7; 1973 c.637 §6; 1975 c.639 §5; 1983 c.407 §7; 2009 c.595 §184]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1976–1998 · leading case: City of Eugene v. Nalven

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Eugene v. Nalven (1998) orctapp · cites it 6× “870; ORS 222.875. [4] *267 We also note that there exists a Lane County ordinance that confers authority on the City to compel extramural connection to the City sewer system in limited circumstances.”

Kelly v. Silver (1976) orctapp · cites it 2× “See ORS 222.875 and 222.895(1). In this connection plaintiffs point out that in the 1975 revision of the Act this has been changed *452 so that any person affected or aggrieved 3 by the action taken is entitled to appeal.”

Trueblood v. HEALTH DIV., DEPT. OF HUMAN RES. (1977) orctapp “Their wording prior to the amendment was: "ORS 222.875. The hearing shall be for the sole purpose of determining whether a danger to public health exists due to conditions in the territory and whether such conditions could be removed or alleviated by sanitary, water or other…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.875(1) — 1 case

City of Eugene v. Nalven (1998) orctapp “870; ORS 222.875. [4] *267 We also note that there exists a Lane County ordinance that confers authority on the City to compel extramural connection to the City sewer system in limited circumstances.”

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.