Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.401 (2026)

Review of assessment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      223.401 Review of assessment. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of ORS 223.387 to 223.399, owners of any property against which an assessment for local improvements has been imposed may seek a review of the assessment under the provisions of ORS 34.010 to 34.100. [1965 c.133 §2; 2017 c.17 §20]

 

REASSESSMENT

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1968–2009 · leading case: Ester v. City of Monmouth, 903 P.2d 344 (Or. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ester v. City of Monmouth, 903 P.2d 344 (Or. 1995). · cites it 6× “The city maintains that ORS 223.401 4 provided petitioner a process, through a writ of review, for challenging the city’s assessment for the local improvement in this case.”
Parker v. City of Albany, 144 P.3d 976 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “040 and ORS 223.401. 2 The issue in the case is not whether that decision is subject to review but when.”
Sch. Dist. No. 3J v. City of Wilsonville, 742 P.2d 59 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “We review pursuant to ORS 223.401 and ORS 34.040 and reverse. During early 1981, three property owners along Wilsonville Road proposed the development of their properties, approval of which was conditioned on the improvement of that road.”
Wing v. City of Eugene, 437 P.2d 836 (Or. 1968). “ORS 223.401 provides that review of the council’s action may be by writ of review under ORS 34.”
McKenney v. City of Lake Oswego, 569 P.2d 27 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 4× “The city has not determined which property to assess, the amount of the assessments, given notice of proposed assessments to affected property owners, held a hearing on objections to the assessments, or by ordinance spread the final assessments.”
Tilbury v. Multnomah Cnty., 902 P.2d 577 (Or. 1995). “City of Monmouth, 322 Or 1, 13 , 903 P2d 344 (1995), that the 10-taxpayer requirement does not deny due process in the context of a taxpayer challenge to an assessment for a local improvement because, in that context, the taxpayer has a right to challenge the assessment “before…”
Lindley v. City of Klamath Falls, 494 P.2d 464 (Or. Ct. App. 1972). “Defendants filed a motion to quash the writ of review. This motion was denied and defendants made a return on the writ.”
Diversified Props., Inc. v. City of Springfield, 738 P.2d 1010 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “It is, at most, an intermediate order. Only the various assessment ordinances directly affected plaintiff.”
Kozak v. City of Bend, 217 P.3d 1118 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “3J, a case in which ORS 223.401 and ORS 34.040 provided for a remedy by writ of review, we held that “the process of determining [local improvement district] boundaries is sufficiently related to the process of determining which properties have benefited from an improvement to…”
Hutchinson v. City of Corvallis, 895 P.2d 797 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “” According to the city, if plaintiff ever decides to develop his property, the longer sewer line frontage will make it easier to install multiple sewer connections.”
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.