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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 271.120 (2026)

Hearing; determination

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      271.120 Hearing; determination. At the time fixed by the governing body for hearing the petition and any objections filed thereto or at any postponement or continuance of such matter, the governing body shall hear the petition and objections and shall determine whether the consent of the owners of the requisite area has been obtained, whether notice has been duly given and whether the public interest will be prejudiced by the vacation of such plat or street or parts thereof. If such matters are determined in favor of the petition the governing body shall by ordinance make such determination a matter of record and vacate such plat or street; otherwise it shall deny the petition. The governing body may, upon hearing, grant the petition in part and deny it in part, and make such reservations, or either, as appear to be for the public interest.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1986–2010 · leading case: West Linn Corp. Park v. City of West Linn, 240 P.3d 29 (Or. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
West Linn Corp. Park v. City of West Linn, 240 P.3d 29 (Or. 2010). · cites it 2× “[24] The certified question identified ORS 271.120 as the source of the landowner consent provisions.”
Conard v. Univ. of Washington, 834 P.2d 17 (Wash. 1992). “2d at 657 (quoting Or. Rev. Stat. § 271.120 (1981)). The court held the first two conditions were factual in nature and the last provided an articulable standard.”
Littlefield v. City of Afton, 785 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1986). “The court held that a development company had a protected property interest in the vacation of a public street because the statute, Or.Rev.Stat. § 271.120 (1981), “mandates that if the three matters [consent of owners in the area, notice and public interest] are determined in…”
Pre-Hosp. Med. Servs., Inc. v. Malheur Cnty., 896 P.2d 585 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “It concluded that ORS 271.120 operates as a significant substantive restriction on an agency’s actions, giving rise to due process rights, because the statute requires that a vacation petition be granted if two factual conditions and a third discretionary factor are met.”
West Linn Corp v. City of West Linn, No. 05-36061 (9th Cir. July 28, 2008). · cites it 2× “” Or. Rev. Stat. § 271.120 . Consequently, the City Council “m[ade] such determination a matter of record and vacate[d] such .”
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.