376.175 Order
granting or denying way of necessity; contents; liability for costs; appeal. (1) Upon consideration of the
matters and issues presented under ORS 376.150 to 376.200, the county governing
body shall determine whether or not a need has been demonstrated for the
granting of a way of necessity under ORS 376.150 to 376.200 and shall enter an
order granting or denying the way of necessity.
(2) Any order
entered under this section shall:
(a) State whether
the way of necessity is granted or denied;
(b) Declare as
established any way of necessity that is granted;
(c) Describe the
exact location and width of any way of necessity established;
(d) Describe
those uses that are permitted on any way of necessity established;
(e) Direct the
petitioner to pay costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred by each owner of
land whose land was subject to the petitioner’s action for a way of necessity
under ORS 376.150 to 376.200;
(f) Establish the
amount of compensation due to any owner of land across which any way of
necessity has been established and direct the petitioner to pay the
compensation; and
(g) Establish the
costs incurred by the county in the procedures for the way of necessity under
ORS 376.150 to 376.200 and direct the petitioner to reimburse the county for
those costs not already paid by petitioner.
(3) An order
entered under subsections (1) and (2) of this section to provide for utility
service, as set forth in ORS 376.150 (2)(b), shall conform to affected utility
policy and standards.
(4) A petitioner
shall pay any costs the petitioner is directed to pay under an order issued
under this section within 60 days after entry of the order. The petitioner is
liable for any costs not paid within the time established in this subsection.
If more than one landowner joins in a petition for a way of necessity under ORS
376.155, every petitioner granted use of the way of necessity shall be jointly
and severally liable for any costs ordered to be paid.
(5) Any party to
the action for a way of necessity may contest any part of the order of the
county governing body in an appeal filed with the circuit court within 30 days
after entry of the order of the county governing body. [1979 c.862 §5; 1989
c.674 §2; 1991 c.936 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case:
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 17× “When the legislature enacted ORS 376.175, it expressly provided for “the payment of attorney fees to a party put to the burden of defending against a claim for a way of necessity, regardless of the result.”
Morgan v. Hart, 937 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1997).
· cites it 16× “On an appeal by the Thorp group, limited to the issue of attorney fees, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of attorney fees. The Court of Appeals held that, when the trial court found in plaintiffs favor on the claim for an express easement, it “necessarily…”
King v. Clements, 923 P.2d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 7× “” Thereafter, defendants applied for attorney fees pursuant to ORS 376.175. Plaintiffs objected to that asserted entitlement, arguing: “There is no authority for allowing attorney fees where the parties stipulate and agree to an easement or right-of-way.”
R & C. Ranch, LLC v. Kunde, 33 P.3d 1011 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“See ORS 376.175(2)(e). Rather, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in apportioning the time that defendant’s attorneys spent on plaintiffs prescriptive easement claim and on its way-of-necessity claim.”
Pike v. Wyllie, 795 P.2d 1097 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 7× “175(2)(e). Thus, the legislature expressly provided for the payment of attorney fees to a party put to the burden of defending against a claim for a way of necessity, regardless of the result.”
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “ORS 376.175(1), (2)(a) and (c); ORS 376.200(2).”
Pike v. Wyllie, 785 P.2d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 6× “]" ORS 376.175. Additionally, ORS 376.180 requires that a way: "(4) Be established only for uses in connection with the property for which the way of necessity is sought; "(5) Not be subject to any use that is not described in the order establishing the way of necessity[.”
Chapman v. Perron, 685 P.2d 492 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “ORS 376.175(2)(e) provides: “Any order entered under this section shall: «* * * * * “(e) Direct the petitioner to pay costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred by each owner of land whose land was subject to the petitioner’s action for a way of necessity under ORS 376.”
Morgan v. Hart, 920 P.2d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 3× “Its judgment was an order under ORS 376.175 denying that claim and should have included an award of appellants’ costs and reasonable attorney fees under ORS 376.”
Witten v. Murphy, 692 P.2d 715 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“1 The Circuit Court affirmed, ORS 376.175(4), and defendants appeal. The question is whether petitioners have carried their burden to show that they have no “existing enforceable access to a public road,” 376.”
Tyska v. Prest, 988 P.2d 392 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “]” ORS 376.175(2)(e). Accordingly, we affirm on the cross-appeal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.175(1) — 3 cases
Morgan v. Hart, 937 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1997).
“On an appeal by the Thorp group, limited to the issue of attorney fees, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of attorney fees. The Court of Appeals held that, when the trial court found in plaintiffs favor on the claim for an express easement, it “necessarily…”
King v. Clements, 923 P.2d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“” Thereafter, defendants applied for attorney fees pursuant to ORS 376.175. Plaintiffs objected to that asserted entitlement, arguing: “There is no authority for allowing attorney fees where the parties stipulate and agree to an easement or right-of-way.”
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“ORS 376.175(1), (2)(a) and (c); ORS 376.200(2).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.175(2)(c) — 1 case
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“ORS 376.175(1), (2)(a) and (c); ORS 376.200(2).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.175(2)(e) — 11 cases
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“When the legislature enacted ORS 376.175, it expressly provided for “the payment of attorney fees to a party put to the burden of defending against a claim for a way of necessity, regardless of the result.”
Morgan v. Hart, 937 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1997).
“On an appeal by the Thorp group, limited to the issue of attorney fees, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of attorney fees. The Court of Appeals held that, when the trial court found in plaintiffs favor on the claim for an express easement, it “necessarily…”
King v. Clements, 923 P.2d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“” Thereafter, defendants applied for attorney fees pursuant to ORS 376.175. Plaintiffs objected to that asserted entitlement, arguing: “There is no authority for allowing attorney fees where the parties stipulate and agree to an easement or right-of-way.”
R & C. Ranch, LLC v. Kunde, 33 P.3d 1011 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“See ORS 376.175(2)(e). Rather, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in apportioning the time that defendant’s attorneys spent on plaintiffs prescriptive easement claim and on its way-of-necessity claim.”
Pike v. Wyllie, 795 P.2d 1097 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“175(2)(e). Thus, the legislature expressly provided for the payment of attorney fees to a party put to the burden of defending against a claim for a way of necessity, regardless of the result.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.175(2)(f) — 3 cases
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“When the legislature enacted ORS 376.175, it expressly provided for “the payment of attorney fees to a party put to the burden of defending against a claim for a way of necessity, regardless of the result.”
Morgan v. Hart, 937 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1997).
“On an appeal by the Thorp group, limited to the issue of attorney fees, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of attorney fees. The Court of Appeals held that, when the trial court found in plaintiffs favor on the claim for an express easement, it “necessarily…”
Pike v. Wyllie, 785 P.2d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“]" ORS 376.175. Additionally, ORS 376.180 requires that a way: "(4) Be established only for uses in connection with the property for which the way of necessity is sought; "(5) Not be subject to any use that is not described in the order establishing the way of necessity[.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.175(4) — 2 cases
Witten v. Murphy, 692 P.2d 715 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“1 The Circuit Court affirmed, ORS 376.175(4), and defendants appeal. The question is whether petitioners have carried their burden to show that they have no “existing enforceable access to a public road,” 376.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.175(5) — 5 cases
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“ORS 376.175(1), (2)(a) and (c); ORS 376.200(2).”
Pike v. Wyllie, 785 P.2d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“]" ORS 376.175. Additionally, ORS 376.180 requires that a way: "(4) Be established only for uses in connection with the property for which the way of necessity is sought; "(5) Not be subject to any use that is not described in the order establishing the way of necessity[.”
Tyska v. Prest, 988 P.2d 392 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“]” ORS 376.175(2)(e). Accordingly, we affirm on the cross-appeal.”
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.