Benton County v. Vincent

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Benton County v. Vincent

653 P.2d 279, 60 Or. App. 324, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 4149

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 17, 1982

DocketNo. 81-126, CA A24487

StatusPublished

This text of 653 P.2d 279 (Benton County v. Vincent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benton County v. Vincent, 653 P.2d 279, 60 Or. App. 324, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 4149 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Benton County granted a conditional use permit to Newmans to operate a rock quarry. Respondents, who live near the rock quarry, appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), contending, inter alia, that the county had misinterpreted the relevant ordinance in granting the permit. LUBA agreed and remanded to the county for reconsideration in light of LUBA’s interpretation of the ordinance. The county appeals, contending that its interpretation of the ordinance is correct. Respondents cross-appeal, contending LUBA should have simply reversed and not allowed further consideration.

After LUBA’s decision, the county amended the relevant ordinance. Both parties agree that the issues addressed by LUBA will not arise on remand under the new ordinance. It is unnecessary therefore to address either of the parties contentions.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Benton County granted a conditional use permit to Newmans to operate a rock quarry. Respondents, who live near the rock quarry, appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), contending, inter alia, that the county had misinterpreted the relevant ordinance in granting the permit. LUBA agreed and remanded to the county for reconsideration in light of LUBA’s interpretation of the ordinance. The county appeals, contending that its interpretation of the ordinance is correct. Respondents cross-appeal, contending LUBA should have simply reversed and not allowed further consideration.

After LUBA’s decision, the county amended the relevant ordinance. Both parties agree that the issues addressed by LUBA will not arise on remand under the new ordinance. It is unnecessary therefore to address either of the parties contentions.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 P.2d 279, 60 Or. App. 324, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 4149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benton-county-v-vincent-orctapp-1982.