376.155
Petition to establish way of necessity; contents; requirements. (1) To establish a way of
necessity under ORS 376.150 to 376.200, a landowner shall file a petition with
the governing body of the county in which the land is located.
(2) A petition
filed under this section shall contain a drawing and a narrative statement that
contain all of the following information:
(a) The location
and legal description of the property to be served by the proposed way of
necessity.
(b) The location
of all public roads located in the vicinity of the property to be served by the
proposed way of necessity that are capable of being used to provide access to
the property. The petition shall include the location of public roads that are not
open for public use.
(c) A specific
proposed location for the proposed way of necessity.
(d) Evidence
showing the necessity for the establishment of a way of necessity.
(e) Evidence that
either:
(A) The proposed
way of necessity does not connect to a public road that has access rights
acquired and limited by the state or county; or
(B) If the public
road proposed for access by way of necessity has the limited access rights, the
state or county is willing to grant permission to connect the proposed way of
necessity to the public road.
(f) Evidence that
the proposed way of necessity may be connected to the public road safely.
(g) Evidence that
the specific location proposed for the way of necessity is the nearest
practicable point for connection to a way of necessity to a public road.
(h) The names and
addresses of the persons owning the land across which the way of necessity
could be located.
(i) The
petitioner’s proposal for the amount of compensation to persons owning land
across which the way of necessity is proposed to be located.
(j) Evidence that
the petitioner does not have an existing easement or right to an easement to
provide access to a public road.
(k) Evidence that
the petitioner does not have any enforceable access to a public road.
(L) If the
petition is to establish a way of necessity described in ORS 376.150 (2)(c),
evidence that:
(A) A publicly
owned sewer line does not exist in the portion of any public road adjacent to
the land; and
(B) The land is
located in a jurisdiction that has adopted and implemented a public sewer
extension program designed to make public sewers available to land lacking
access to a public sewer line in the portion of a public road adjacent to the
land. [1979 c.862 §2; 1991 c.936 §2; 2009 c.318 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case:
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 8× “The county governing body is *673 responsible for investigating the petition, determining whether the way of necessity should be granted and recommending the appropriate route through the subject property.”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “” ORS 376.155(2). Respondents’ contention that the property is not landlocked requires little discussion.”
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry, 537 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “In 2015, plaintiff filed a petition pursuant to ORS 376.155 to establish a way of necessity, due to being landlocked.”
Morgan v. Hart, 937 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1997).
· cites it 2× “160 provides, in part: “(1) Upon receipt of a petition for a way of necessity filed under ORS 376.155, a [circuit court] shall: :j: sK “(b) Direct the county engineer, county surveyor or other persons appointed by the [circuit court] to investigate the proposed way of necessity…”
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“ORS 376.155(1). Once served with a petition, the county may transfer jurisdiction over the establishment of the proposed way of necessity to the circuit court in that county if the county has adopted an ordinance allowing jurisdiction.”
Pike v. Wyllie, 785 P.2d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “As enacted, the new law, ORS 376.155, requires that, to establish a way of necessity, a landowner must file a petition with the governing body of the county in which the land is located that must contain: "(2) * * * all of the following information: "* * * * * "(j) Evidence that…”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “" ORS 376.155(2). Respondents' contention that the property is not landlocked requires little discussion.”
Robertson v. City of Turner, 69 P.3d 738 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“They could take ownership of the bridge; they could pay the cost of bringing it up to the standards required by ODOT; or they could petition the county for a “way of necessity” to Wipper Road pursuant to ORS 376.155. A “way of necessity” is a “road established * * * to provide…”
Morgan v. Hart, 920 P.2d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“ORS 376.155(2)(j) and (k). Its judgment was an order under ORS 376.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.155(1) — 2 cases
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“ORS 376.155(1). Once served with a petition, the county may transfer jurisdiction over the establishment of the proposed way of necessity to the circuit court in that county if the county has adopted an ordinance allowing jurisdiction.”
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“The county governing body is *673 responsible for investigating the petition, determining whether the way of necessity should be granted and recommending the appropriate route through the subject property.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.155(2) — 3 cases
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“” ORS 376.155(2). Respondents’ contention that the property is not landlocked requires little discussion.”
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“The county governing body is *673 responsible for investigating the petition, determining whether the way of necessity should be granted and recommending the appropriate route through the subject property.”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“" ORS 376.155(2). Respondents' contention that the property is not landlocked requires little discussion.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.155(2)(g) — 2 cases
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“” ORS 376.155(2). Respondents’ contention that the property is not landlocked requires little discussion.”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“" ORS 376.155(2). Respondents' contention that the property is not landlocked requires little discussion.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.155(2)(h) — 1 case
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“The county governing body is *673 responsible for investigating the petition, determining whether the way of necessity should be granted and recommending the appropriate route through the subject property.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.155(2)(j) — 3 cases
Morgan v. Hart, 937 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1997).
“160 provides, in part: “(1) Upon receipt of a petition for a way of necessity filed under ORS 376.155, a [circuit court] shall: :j: sK “(b) Direct the county engineer, county surveyor or other persons appointed by the [circuit court] to investigate the proposed way of necessity…”
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“The county governing body is *673 responsible for investigating the petition, determining whether the way of necessity should be granted and recommending the appropriate route through the subject property.”
Morgan v. Hart, 920 P.2d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“ORS 376.155(2)(j) and (k). Its judgment was an order under ORS 376.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.155(2)(k) — 1 case
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“The county governing body is *673 responsible for investigating the petition, determining whether the way of necessity should be granted and recommending the appropriate route through the subject property.”
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.