376.160 Notice
to landowners; investigation of proposed way; report to county governing body. (1) Upon receipt of a petition for
a way of necessity filed under ORS 376.155, a county governing body shall:
(a) Provide for
service of the petition on all persons owning land across which the way of
necessity could be located; and
(b) Direct the
county engineer, county surveyor or other persons appointed by the governing
body to investigate the proposed way of necessity and to submit a written
report to the county governing body.
(2) The report
under subsection (1) of this section shall include:
(a) Possible
alternate routes for ways of necessity to the property;
(b) A
determination of whether the proposed way of necessity meets the requirements
under ORS 376.150 to 376.200;
(c) The
reasonableness of the way of necessity proposed in the petition; and
(d) A
recommendation for a specific location and width for a way of necessity.
(3) Upon receipt
of the report under subsection (2) of this section, the county governing body
shall:
(a) Provide a
copy of the report to the petitioner; and
(b) Serve a copy
of the petition and report on all persons owning land across which the way of
necessity is proposed to be located under the report or the petition.
(4) Service of
the petition and report under this section shall be accomplished in the manner
provided for service of summons in an action at law. If the report includes a
recommendation for a route different than the route proposed in the petition,
service on the affected parties shall include a copy of the petition. [1979
c.862 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1990–2014 · leading case:
Morgan v. Hart, 937 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1997).
Morgan v. Hart, 937 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1997).
· cites it 3× “After plaintiff filed his petition, and as is required by ORS 376.160, 1 a surveyor’s report was prepared.”
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “ORS 376.160(2)(b) and (d). The way of necessity need not be located where the petitioner proposes.”
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“When a circuit court has jurisdiction over *83 the establishment of the way of necessity, as in this case, the court must appoint an investigator to submit a written report addressing whether the conditions for the way of necessity have been met, recommending possible…”
Pike v. Wyllie, 785 P.2d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 6× “) Thus, unless an easement provides reasonable access to a public road, its existence should not bar a landowner from obtaining a way of necessity.”
Morgan v. Hart, 920 P.2d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“Over plaintiffs objections, the trial court 1 ordered that the Lane County surveyor proceed with preparing the report provided in ORS 376.160 before the court decided the first two claims.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.160(2) — 1 case
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“When a circuit court has jurisdiction over *83 the establishment of the way of necessity, as in this case, the court must appoint an investigator to submit a written report addressing whether the conditions for the way of necessity have been met, recommending possible…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.160(2)(b) — 1 case
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“ORS 376.160(2)(b) and (d). The way of necessity need not be located where the petitioner proposes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.160(2)(c) — 1 case
Pike v. Wyllie, 785 P.2d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“) Thus, unless an easement provides reasonable access to a public road, its existence should not bar a landowner from obtaining a way of necessity.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.160(3)(b) — 1 case
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“ORS 376.160(2)(b) and (d). The way of necessity need not be located where the petitioner proposes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.160(b) — 1 case
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“ORS 376.160(2)(b) and (d). The way of necessity need not be located where the petitioner proposes.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.160(l)(a) — 1 case
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“ORS 376.160(2)(b) and (d). The way of necessity need not be located where the petitioner proposes.”
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.