ORS 35.520¹
Decision on benefits
  • • hearing
  • • review

Any person who applies for relocation benefits or assistance under ORS 35.510 (Duties of public entities acquiring real property) shall receive the public entity’s written decision on the application, which shall include the statement of any amount awarded, the statutory basis for the award and the statement of any finding of fact that the public entity made in arriving at its decision. A person aggrieved by the decision shall be entitled to a hearing substantially of the character required by ORS 183.413 (Notice to parties before hearing of rights and procedure) to 183.470 (Orders in contested cases), unless federal, state or local law provides otherwise. Notice required by ORS 183.415 (Notice of right to hearing) must be served within 180 days of the receipt of the written decision by the aggrieved party. The decision of the public entity shall be reviewable pursuant to ORS 183.480 (Judicial review of agency orders). [Formerly 281.085; 2007 c.288 §5]

§§ 35.500 (Definitions for ORS 35.500 to 35.530) to 35.530 (Federal law controls)

Notes of Decisions

Where plaintiff's lease for maintaining advertising sign had expired, plaintiff was not entitled to reloca­tion benefits under these sec­tions as legal right to maintain sign at that loca­tion had terminated. Ackerley v. Mt. Hood Comm. College, 51 Or App 801, 627 P2d 487 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Where peti­tioners, month-to-month tenants, were displaced when their residences were leased to county Depart­ment of Correc­tions, leasehold was a real prop­erty interest within meaning of ORS 281.045 (renumbered ORS 35.500 (Definitions for ORS 35.500 to 35.530)), but leasing of space was not an acquisi­tion and peti­tioners were not entitled to reloca­tion assistance. Shepard v. Dept. of Community Correc­tions, 293 Or 191, 646 P2d 1322 (1982)

Chapter 35

Notes of Decisions

Replace­ment value of prop­erty should not be considered unless prop­erty is unique or unless prop­erty taken performs legally necessary func­tion. State Bd. of Higher Educ. v. First Methodist Church, 6 Or App 492, 488 P2d 835 (1971)

Occupa­tion of land by condemnor during eminent domain pro­ceed­ings does not constitute waiver by condemnor of its right to abandon such pro­ceed­ings. Port of Newport v. Haydon, 10 Or App 271, 498 P2d 825 (1972)

Organiza­tion of prop­erty owners adjoining automobile raceway did not show in challenging city's grant of noise ordinance variance to raceway that it utilized eminent domain pro­ce­dures es­tab­lished by state law. Citizen's Ass'n. of Portland v. Intern. Race­ways, 833 F2d 763 (1987)

Law Review Cita­tions

8 WLJ 261-268 (1972); 85 OLR 1063 (2006)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 35—Eminent Domain; Public Acquisition of Property, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­Archive/­2007ors35.­pdf (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 35, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­035ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information