2017 ORS 34.102¹
Review of decisions of municipal corporations
  • transfers between circuit court and Land Use Board of Appeals
  • limitations

(1) As used in this section, “municipal corporation” means a county, city, district or other municipal corporation or public corporation organized for a public purpose, including a cooperative body formed between municipal corporations.

(2) Except for a proceeding resulting in a land use decision or limited land use decision as defined in ORS 197.015 (Definitions for ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and ORS 197A.300 to 197A.325), for which review is provided in ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) to 197.845 (Stay of decision being reviewed), or an expedited land division as described in ORS 197.360 (“Expedited land division” defined), for which review is provided in ORS 197.375 (Appeal of decision on application for expedited land division) (8), the decisions of the governing body of a municipal corporation acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity and made in the transaction of municipal corporation business shall be reviewed only as provided in ORS 34.010 (Former writ of certiorari as writ of review) to 34.100 (Power of court on review), and not otherwise.

(3) A petition for writ of review filed in the circuit court and requesting review of a land use decision or limited land use decision as defined in ORS 197.015 (Definitions for ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and ORS 197A.300 to 197A.325) of a municipal corporation shall be transferred to the Land Use Board of Appeals and treated as a notice of intent to appeal if the petition was filed within the time allowed for filing a notice of intent to appeal pursuant to ORS 197.830 (Review procedures). If the petition was not filed within the time allowed by ORS 197.830 (Review procedures), the court shall dismiss the petition.

(4) A notice of intent to appeal filed with the Land Use Board of Appeals pursuant to ORS 197.830 (Review procedures) and requesting review of a decision of a municipal corporation made in the transaction of municipal corporation business that is not reviewable as a land use decision or limited land use decision as defined in ORS 197.015 (Definitions for ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and ORS 197A.300 to 197A.325) shall be transferred to the circuit court and treated as a petition for writ of review. If the notice was not filed with the board within the time allowed for filing a petition for writ of review pursuant to ORS 34.010 (Former writ of certiorari as writ of review) to 34.100 (Power of court on review), the court shall dismiss the petition.

(5) In any case in which the Land Use Board of Appeals or circuit court to which a petition or notice is transferred under subsection (3) or (4) of this section disputes whether it has authority to review the decision with which the petition or notice is concerned, the board or court before which the matter is pending shall refer the question of whether the board or court has authority to review to the Court of Appeals, which shall decide the question in a summary manner. [Formerly 19.230]

Note: 34.102 (Review of decisions of municipal corporations) was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 34 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

(formerly 19.230)

Notes of Decisions

“Not reviewable as a land use decision. . .as defined in ORS 197.015 (Definitions for ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and ORS 197A.300 to 197A.325)” means that subject matter of controversy is outside statutory defini­tion of term. Owen Develop­ment Group, Inc. v. City of Gearhart, 111 Or App 476, 826 P2d 1016 (1992)

Under statutes in effect in 1989, this sec­tion permitted trial court to review local govern­ment decision about parti­tion because ORS 197.015 (Definitions for ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and ORS 197A.300 to 197A.325) specified that decision was not land use decision but 1991 legisla­tion eliminated such specifica­tion. State ex rel Par­menter v. Wallowa County Court, 114 Or App 362, 835 P2d 152 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Where ac­tion seeks to enforce rights arising from terms of contract rather than from extra-contractual source, ac­tion may be brought in contract even though remedy might otherwise be available through writ of review. Cloyd v. Lebanon School District 16C, 161 Or App 572, 985 P2d 232 (1999)

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)

Principle that writ of review provides exclusive remedy does not prevent bringing inverse condemna­tion claim against county based on quasi-judicial decision. Butchart v. Baker County, 214 Or App 61, 166 P3d 537 (2007)

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.