Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.179 (2026)

Writ of mandamus authorized after deadline for final action; jurisdiction; process

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

      227.179 Writ of mandamus authorized after deadline for final action; jurisdiction; process. (1) If the governing body of a city or its designee does not take final action on an application within the period allowed under ORS 227.178, 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 227.178, the applicant may elect to proceed with the application according to the applicable provisions of the local 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 local 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 local comprehensive plan or land use regulations. [1999 c.533 §10; 2003 c.150 §2; 2025 c.476 §45]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: State ex rel. Schrodt v. Jackson Cnty., 324 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
State ex rel. Schrodt v. Jackson Cnty., 324 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “402(4) (defining “permit” as a “discretionary approval of a proposed development of land”).”
State ex rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 343 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 7× “On April 2, relator petitioned the trial court for an alternative writ of mandamus that would direct *493 the city to approve his application pursuant to ORS 227.179, which provides, in part: “Except when an applicant requests an extension * * *, if the governing body of a city…”
State ex rel. West Main Townhomes, LLC v. City of Medford, 225 P.3d 56 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “ORS 227.179 provides: “(1) Except when an applicant requests an extension ** * *, if the governing body of a city * * * does not take final action on an application for a permit * * * within 120 days after the application is deemed complete, thé applicant may file a petition for…”
State Ex Rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 251 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 9× “Similarly, we decline the city’s invitation, in this case, to view defendant’s submission on December 4, 2008, and subsequent withdrawal via voicemail on December 8, to permit an extension of the 120-day deadline or to otherwise allow the city to set a new “deemed complete” date…”
Griffin Oak Prop. Invest. v. City of Rockaway Beach, 509 P.3d 643 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 7× “179, the circuit court entered a judgment requiring defendant City of Rockaway Beach (city) to approve rela- tors’ application for a zoning permit to rebuild a deck on their oceanfront home. The city appeals, contending that, contrary to the circuit court’s ruling, the city…”
State ex rel. Coastal Mgmt., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 36 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “178 and ORS 227.179 provide the same mandamus remedy for delayed city land use decision making as ORS 215.”
State ex rel. Butler v. City of Bandon, 131 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “[[Image here]] *693 The dock was constructed beginning in 1983. The dock is approximately 230 feet long and 41 feet wide.”
Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. City of Beaverton, 203 P.3d 309 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “429 (providing for mandamus action where local government does not take action on application for permit, limited land use decision, or zoning change within applicable time period); ORS 227.179 (same). ORS 197.825 provides that LUBA has “exclusive jurisdiction to review any land…”
State Ex Rel. West Main Townhomes, LLC v. City of Medford, 228 P.3d 607 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “At the mandamus hearing, developer argued that the Medford Code (MC) provision governing development proposals, MC 10.453, was impermissibly vague under ORS 227.”
State ex rel. Crown Inv. Grp., LLC v. City of Bend, 136 P.3d 1149 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “On August 9, 2004, Crown brought an action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the city to approve its application pursuant to ORS 227.179(1), which permits such actions where the city does not take final action on a permit application within 120 days.”
Siskiyou Pines v. Civil West Eng'g Servs., 350 Or. App. 28 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “Rather, a continuing tort is “where either no sin- gle act gives rise to the tort claim or the plaintiff’s harm can 3 ORS 227.179(2) provides: “The governing body shall retain jurisdiction to make a land use decision on the application until a petition for a writ of manda- mus…”
State ex rel. Icon Groupe, LLC v. Washington Cnty., 359 P.3d 269 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “429 (with respect to counties) and ORS 227.179 (with respect to cities) is to convert what otherwise would have been a discretionary land use decision for a local government into a mandatory approval when the local government does not timely make a final decision.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.179(1) — 5 cases
State Ex Rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 251 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Similarly, we decline the city’s invitation, in this case, to view defendant’s submission on December 4, 2008, and subsequent withdrawal via voicemail on December 8, to permit an extension of the 120-day deadline or to otherwise allow the city to set a new “deemed complete” date…”
State ex rel. West Main Townhomes, LLC v. City of Medford, 225 P.3d 56 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 227.179 provides: “(1) Except when an applicant requests an extension ** * *, if the governing body of a city * * * does not take final action on an application for a permit * * * within 120 days after the application is deemed complete, thé applicant may file a petition for…”
State ex rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 343 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “On April 2, relator petitioned the trial court for an alternative writ of mandamus that would direct *493 the city to approve his application pursuant to ORS 227.179, which provides, in part: “Except when an applicant requests an extension * * *, if the governing body of a city…”
Griffin Oak Prop. Invest. v. City of Rockaway Beach, 509 P.3d 643 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “179, the circuit court entered a judgment requiring defendant City of Rockaway Beach (city) to approve rela- tors’ application for a zoning permit to rebuild a deck on their oceanfront home. The city appeals, contending that, contrary to the circuit court’s ruling, the city…”
State ex rel. Crown Inv. Grp., LLC v. City of Bend, 136 P.3d 1149 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “On August 9, 2004, Crown brought an action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the city to approve its application pursuant to ORS 227.179(1), which permits such actions where the city does not take final action on a permit application within 120 days.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.179(2) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 251 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Similarly, we decline the city’s invitation, in this case, to view defendant’s submission on December 4, 2008, and subsequent withdrawal via voicemail on December 8, to permit an extension of the 120-day deadline or to otherwise allow the city to set a new “deemed complete” date…”
Siskiyou Pines v. Civil West Eng'g Servs., 350 Or. App. 28 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “Rather, a continuing tort is “where either no sin- gle act gives rise to the tort claim or the plaintiff’s harm can 3 ORS 227.179(2) provides: “The governing body shall retain jurisdiction to make a land use decision on the application until a petition for a writ of manda- mus…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.179(4) — 2 cases
State ex rel. West Main Townhomes, LLC v. City of Medford, 225 P.3d 56 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 227.179 provides: “(1) Except when an applicant requests an extension ** * *, if the governing body of a city * * * does not take final action on an application for a permit * * * within 120 days after the application is deemed complete, thé applicant may file a petition for…”
State Ex Rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 251 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Similarly, we decline the city’s invitation, in this case, to view defendant’s submission on December 4, 2008, and subsequent withdrawal via voicemail on December 8, to permit an extension of the 120-day deadline or to otherwise allow the city to set a new “deemed complete” date…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 227.179(5) — 4 cases
State ex rel. Stewart v. City of Salem, 343 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “On April 2, relator petitioned the trial court for an alternative writ of mandamus that would direct *493 the city to approve his application pursuant to ORS 227.179, which provides, in part: “Except when an applicant requests an extension * * *, if the governing body of a city…”
State ex rel. Butler v. City of Bandon, 131 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “[[Image here]] *693 The dock was constructed beginning in 1983. The dock is approximately 230 feet long and 41 feet wide.”
Griffin Oak Prop. Invest. v. City of Rockaway Beach, 509 P.3d 643 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “179, the circuit court entered a judgment requiring defendant City of Rockaway Beach (city) to approve rela- tors’ application for a zoning permit to rebuild a deck on their oceanfront home. The city appeals, contending that, contrary to the circuit court’s ruling, the city…”
State ex rel. Crown Inv. Grp., LLC v. City of Bend, 136 P.3d 1149 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “On August 9, 2004, Crown brought an action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the city to approve its application pursuant to ORS 227.179(1), which permits such actions where the city does not take final action on a permit application within 120 days.”
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.