Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 368.326

Purpose of vacation procedures; limitation

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

      368.326 Purpose of vacation procedures; limitation. ORS 368.326 to 368.366 establish vacation procedures by which a county governing body may vacate a subdivision, part of a subdivision, a public road, a trail, a public easement, public square or any other public property or public interest in property under the jurisdiction of the county governing body. The vacation procedures under ORS 368.326 to 368.366:

      (1) Shall not be used by the county governing body to vacate property or an interest in property that is within a city.

      (2) Are an alternative method to the method established under ORS chapter 92 for the vacation of a subdivision. [1981 c.153 §34]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1983–2014 · leading case: Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Development Co. v. Polk County
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Development Co. v. Polk County (2011) orctapp · cites it 5× “5 Second, ORS 368.326 to 368.366 (1981) provided a *556 vacation method, not limited to undeveloped subdivisions.”
Billington v. Polk County (1985) or · cites it 2× “In June 1983, the Polk County Board of Commissioners (Board) pursuant to ORS 368.326, et seq (Vacation of County Property) vacated the westerly 20 feet of a 40 foot wide dead-end roadway known as Clearview Orchards Road.”
RealVest Corp. v. Lane County (2004) orctapp “The county responds that under ORS 368.326 it has no authority to vacate an interest in property that is within a city and that the county’s land is presently within the City of Springfield.”
Howe v. Greenleaf (2014) orctapp “366 5 provides, as relevant: “(1) When a county governing body vacates public property under ORS 368.326 to 368.366, the vacated property shall vest as follows: “(c) Unless otherwise described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection, the vacated property shall vest in the…”
Rendler v. Lincoln County (1985) orctapp “3 The new sections dealing with vacation of county roads appear at ORS 368.326 et seq. 4 In 1974, owners of land abutting 804 petitioned the Lincoln County Commissioners to have the road vacated.”
Wilkins v. Lane County (1983) orctapp · cites it 2× “See ORS 368.326 et seq. Therefore, at the time the permit was issued, County Road 386 *499 was still a public highway over which the county had authority.”
Pacific Western Co. v. Lincoln County (2000) orctapp · cites it 3× “366 if the vacation would deprive an owner of a recorded property right of access necessary for the exercise of that property right unless the county governing body has the consent of the owner.” (Emphasis added.) The circuit court construed the emphasized language as requiring…”
Harding v. Clackamas County (1988) orctapp · cites it 3× “346 if: “(1) The county road official files with the county governing body a written report that contains the county road official’s assessment that any vacation of public property is in the public interest; and “(2) The proceedings for vacation under ORS 368.326 to 368.366 were…”
Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Lincoln County (1999) orctapp “However, I believe that statute simply places the county into the shoes of the city as the decision maker — giving the county jurisdiction or authority to vacate such roads that it would otherwise lack due to ORS 368.326. I see nothing in ORS 368.361(3) that has any bearing on…”
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.