2017 ORS 34.030¹
Jurisdiction to grant writ
  • petition for writ
  • time limit

The writ shall be allowed by the circuit court, or, in counties where the county court has judicial functions, by the county court wherein the decision or determination sought to be reviewed was made, upon the petition of the plaintiff, describing the decision or determination with convenient certainty, and setting forth the errors alleged to have been committed therein. The petition shall be signed by the plaintiff or the attorney of the plaintiff, and verified by the certificate of an attorney to the effect that the attorney has examined the process or proceeding, and the decision or determination therein, and that it is erroneous as alleged in the petition. A writ shall not be allowed unless the petition therefor is made within 60 days from the date of the decision or determination sought to be reviewed. [Amended by 1979 c.772 §9a]

Notes of Decisions

This sec­tion relates to venue and is not jurisdic­tional. Dietz v. Ott, 8 Or App 634, 495 P2d 1212 (1972)

A mo­tion to quash is the proper means of challenging a writ not filed within the time limit imposed by this sec­tion. Meury v. Jarrell, 16 Or App 239, 517 P2d 1221 (1974), aff’d 269 Or 606, 525 P2d 1286 (1974)

An amended peti­tion under this sec­tion which states sufficient facts can be filed after the 60-day time limit has expired, so long as the original filing was within that time limit. Meury v. Jarrell, 16 Or App 239, 517 P2d 1221 (1974), aff’d269 Or 606, 525 P2d 1286 (1974); NW Environ­mental Defense Center v. The City Council for the City of Portland, 20 Or App 234, 531 P2d 284 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

Only the entry of the formal written judg­ment, or in the case of a zoning change, the adop­tion of the ordinance, begins the 60-day limita­tion period. Duddles v. City Council of West Linn, 21 Or App 310, 535 P2d 583 (1975)

Date of “decision or determina­tion” which had effect of beginning period for ap­peal under this sec­tion was when city council voted and announced its decision to deny zone change and not date of entry of approved minutes of meeting. Hitchcock v. McMinnville City Council, 47 Or App 897, 615 P2d 409 (1980), aff’don other grounds, 291 Or 404, 631 P2d 777 (1981)

Where no vote was taken, or decision made at public hearing on condi­tional use permit applica­tion, and county’s pro­ce­dures provided for entry of the final order in county journal, date of the journal entry was controlling date for determining the 60-day statutory period within which to commence writ of review ac­tion. Lyford v. Board of Commissioners for Benton County/Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, 59 Or App 585, 651 P2d 1355 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Peti­tion for writ of review is not sufficient where peti­tion contains merely conclusory allega­tions of error, does not inform court of evidence to be addressed and does not provide sufficient facts to enable court to determine whether to issue writ. Gruetzke v. City of Gresham, 108 Or App 325, 815 P2d 228 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Court could not obtain jurisdic­tion over time-barred writ of review by permitting amend­ment of complaint for declaratory judg­ment to include peti­tion and relating peti­tion back to date complaint was filed. Shipp v. Multnomah County, 133 Or App 583, 891 P2d 1345 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 371 (1974)

Notes of Decisions

The circuit court lacked jurisdic­tion to issue a writ of review concerning district court order denying defendant’s mo­tion for leave to withdraw his guilty plea in a crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ing. Humphreys v. State of Oregon, 19 Or App 630, 528 P2d 1094 (1974)

Court may join two writs that arise out of same transac­tion. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Approval of tentative plan under subdivision ordinance is final order reviewable in writ of review pro­ceed­ing. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Order which is not ap­pealable is not subject to review by writ of review. Botteron v. Carter, 33 Or App 417, 576 P2d 828 (1978)

Where rights and responsibilities of manage­ment employe at community college were controlled by terms of his contract and college’s Administrative Policy Handbook, remedy for termina­tion was limited to writ of review, since district board’s termina­tion decision was “decision or determina­tion” under ORS 34.020 (Who may obtain review) in exercise of its authority under ORS 341.290 (General powers). Cole v. Chemeketa Comm. College, 58 Or App 77, 647 P2d 935 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

In absence of statutory basis by which judge could compel nonparty to crim­i­nal case to grant access to nonparty’s home to attorneys for crim­i­nal defendant, peremptory writ issued. State ex rel Beach v. Norblad, 308 Or 429, 781 P2d 349 (1989)

Availability of writ of review does not preclude ac­tion based on common law tort of wrongful discharge. Shockey v. City of Portland, 313 Or 414, 837 P2d 505 (1992)

Where peti­tion for writ of review has been timely filed but peti­tioner has not taken addi­tional steps necessary to obtain and serve writ, court retains jurisdic­tion but lacks authority to proceed further on peti­tion. Spivak v. Marriott, 213 Or App 1, 159 P3d 1192 (2007)

Final Decision By Inferior Tribunal Precludes Related Claim If

1) claimant was party to tribunal pro­ceed­ing that adjudicated effect of facts common to related claim; and 2) related claim would involve reviewing correctness of tribunal decision under ORS 34.040 (When allowed) standards. Spivak v. Marriott, 213 Or App 1, 159 P3d 1192 (2007)

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 95, 96 (1973); 10 WLJ 359, 374-384 (1974); 54 OLR 396-401 (1975); 15 EL 243 (1985)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 34—Writs, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors034.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 34, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano034.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.