Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 271.080 (2026)

Vacation in incorporated cities; petition; consent of property owners

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

      271.080 Vacation in incorporated cities; petition; consent of property owners. (1) Whenever any person interested in any real property in an incorporated city in this state desires to vacate all or part of any street, avenue, boulevard, alley, plat, public square or other public place, such person may file a petition therefor setting forth a description of the ground proposed to be vacated, the purpose for which the ground is proposed to be used and the reason for such vacation.

      (2) There shall be appended to such petition, as a part thereof and as a basis for granting the same, the consent of the owners of all abutting property and of not less than two-thirds in area of the real property affected thereby. The real property affected thereby shall be deemed to be the land lying on either side of the street or portion thereof proposed to be vacated and extending laterally to the next street that serves as a parallel street, but in any case not to exceed 200 feet, and the land for a like lateral distance on either side of the street for 400 feet along its course beyond each terminus of the part proposed to be vacated. Where a street is proposed to be vacated to its termini, the land embraced in an extension of the street for a distance of 400 feet beyond each terminus shall also be counted. In the vacation of any plat or part thereof the consent of the owner or owners of two-thirds in area of the property embraced within such plat or part thereof proposed to be vacated shall be sufficient, except where such vacation embraces street area, when, as to such street area the above requirements shall also apply. The consent of the owners of the required amount of property shall be in writing. [Amended by 1999 c.866 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1968–2010 · leading case: West Linn Corp. Park, L.L.C. v. City of West Linn, 240 P.3d 29 (Or. 2010).
West Linn Corp. Park, L.L.C. v. City of West Linn, 240 P.3d 29 (Or. 2010). · cites it 26× “110] is ultra vires where the petition does not comply with the landowner consent provisions of [ORS 271.080]." West Linn Corporate Park LLC v.”
Bitte v. City of St. Helens, 446 P.2d 978 (Or. 1968). · cites it 2× ““(1) The city governing body may initiate vacation proceedings authorized by ORS 271.080 and make such vacation without a petition or consent of property owners.”
Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Lincoln Cnty., 992 P.2d 936 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “100 is similar in substance to Policy 6, but it relates specifically to city review of petition vacation proposals pursuant to ORS 271.080 et seq. ORS 197.015110XaXA) defines “land use decision,” as, inter alia: “A final decision or determination made by a local government or…”
West Linn Corp v. City of West Linn (9th Cir. 2008). “110 is ultra vires where the petition does not com- ply with the landowner consent provisions of Or. Rev. Stat. § 271.080 . I We provide the following factual background.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 271.080(1) — 1 case
West Linn Corp. Park, L.L.C. v. City of West Linn, 240 P.3d 29 (Or. 2010). “110] is ultra vires where the petition does not comply with the landowner consent provisions of [ORS 271.080]." West Linn Corporate Park LLC v.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 271.080(2) — 1 case
West Linn Corp. Park, L.L.C. v. City of West Linn, 240 P.3d 29 (Or. 2010). “110] is ultra vires where the petition does not comply with the landowner consent provisions of [ORS 271.080]." West Linn Corporate Park LLC v.”
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.