376.200
Transfer of jurisdiction over establishment of ways of necessity to circuit
court; local court rules; procedure after transfer. (1) Notwithstanding any provision
of ORS 376.150 to 376.200, a county governing body may adopt an ordinance
removing the county governing body from jurisdiction over the establishment of
ways of necessity under ORS 376.150 to 376.200.
(2) If the county
governing body adopts an ordinance described in subsection (1) of this section,
the circuit court of that county shall have jurisdiction of the establishment
of ways of necessity for that county. Except as otherwise provided in this section,
a court with jurisdiction of the establishment of ways of necessity under this
section shall follow the procedures for establishment of a way of necessity
provided under ORS 376.150 to 376.200. The court may adopt local court rules to
supplement the procedures provided under ORS 376.150 to 376.200.
(3)
Notwithstanding ORS 376.175, if jurisdiction for establishment of ways of
necessity is in the circuit court as provided under this section, an appeal
from the decision of the court shall be to the Court of Appeals.
(4)
Notwithstanding ORS 376.160 (1), if jurisdiction for establishment of ways of
necessity is in the circuit court as provided under this section, upon filing a
petition the petitioner shall:
(a) Provide for
service of the petition on all persons owning land across which the way of
necessity could be located; and
(b) Post a bond
or security deposit with the court clerk in an amount required by the court to
pay for the cost of the investigation and report under subsection (5) of this
section.
(5) If
jurisdiction for establishment of ways of necessity is in the circuit court as
provided under this section, upon receipt of a petition the court shall appoint
a person to investigate the proposed way of necessity and submit a written
report to the court and the petitioner. The cost of the investigation and
report shall be charged against the bond or security deposit posted under
subsection (4) of this section. If the bond or security deposit is more than
the actual cost of the investigation and report, the difference shall be
refunded to the petitioner. If the bond or security deposit is less than the
actual cost of the investigation and report, the petitioner shall pay to the
county governing body the amount of the deficiency. A judgment of the court
shall not become final until the full cost of the investigation and report has
been paid.
(6)
Notwithstanding ORS 376.160 (3), if jurisdiction for establishment of ways of
necessity is in the circuit court as provided under this section, upon receipt
of the report under subsection (5) of this section, the petitioner shall 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 petition or report. [1979
c.862 §10; 1995 c.265 §1]
376.205 [Repealed by 1981 c.153 §79]
376.210 [Repealed by 1981 c.153 §79]
376.215 [Repealed by 1981 c.153 §79]
376.220 [Repealed by 1981 c.153 §79]
FOREST ROADS
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
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 9× “150 to ORS 376.200, 1 we must determine whether the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs’ action is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.”
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “The board transferred jurisdiction to the Clatsop County Circuit Court pursuant to ORS 376.200 and Clatsop County Ordinance No.”
Morgan v. Hart, 937 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1997).
· cites it 3× “However, ORS 376.200 provides, in part: “(1) Notwithstanding any provision of ORS 376.”
King v. Clements, 923 P.2d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “150 to ORS 376.200 was transferred from the Douglas County Board of Commissioners to the Douglas County Circuit Court.”
Pike v. Wyllie, 785 P.2d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 8× “150 to ORS 376.200 authorize the creation of a private road.”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Pursuant to ORS 376.200(5), the court appointed Boldt to investigate the proposed way of necessity and to submit a written report.”
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry, 537 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“155 contem- plates a petition for a way of necessity being filed with the rel- evant county’s governing body; however, ORS 376.200 allows a county governing body to remove itself from jurisdiction, thus vesting jurisdiction in the circuit court for the county.”
Pike v. Wyllie, 795 P.2d 1097 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“150 to ORS 376.200. Even if our decision on de novo review, ORS 5.”
Morgan v. Hart, 920 P.2d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “150 to ORS 376.200 was transferred from the Lane County Board of Commissioners to the Lane County Circuit Court.”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Pursuant to ORS 376.200(5), the court appointed Boldt to investigate the proposed way of necessity and to submit a written report.”
Tyska v. Prest, 988 P.2d 392 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“150 to ORS 376.200, for the establishment of a statutory way of necessity.”
Thomas Creek Lumber v. Dept. of Forestry (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“155 contem- plates a petition for a way of necessity being filed with the rel- evant county’s governing body; however, ORS 376.200 allows a county governing body to remove itself from jurisdiction, thus vesting jurisdiction in the circuit court for the county.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.200(1) — 3 cases
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“The board transferred jurisdiction to the Clatsop County Circuit Court pursuant to ORS 376.200 and Clatsop County Ordinance No.”
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“150 to ORS 376.200, 1 we must determine whether the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs’ action is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.”
Morgan v. Hart, 937 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1997).
“However, ORS 376.200 provides, in part: “(1) Notwithstanding any provision of ORS 376.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.200(2) — 2 cases
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“150 to ORS 376.200, 1 we must determine whether the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs’ action is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.”
Morgan v. Hart, 937 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1997).
“However, ORS 376.200 provides, in part: “(1) Notwithstanding any provision of ORS 376.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.200(3) — 2 cases
Pike v. Wyllie, 785 P.2d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“150 to ORS 376.200 authorize the creation of a private road.”
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“150 to ORS 376.200, 1 we must determine whether the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs’ action is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.200(4)(a) — 1 case
Nice v. Priday, 945 P.2d 559 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“150 to ORS 376.200, 1 we must determine whether the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs’ action is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 376.200(5) — 3 cases
Bradley v. State, 324 P.3d 504 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“The board transferred jurisdiction to the Clatsop County Circuit Court pursuant to ORS 376.200 and Clatsop County Ordinance No.”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Pursuant to ORS 376.200(5), the court appointed Boldt to investigate the proposed way of necessity and to submit a written report.”
Petroff v. Williams, 246 P.3d 39 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Pursuant to ORS 376.200(5), the court appointed Boldt to investigate the proposed way of necessity and to submit a written report.”
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.