Citizens for Constitutional Fairness v. Jackson County

Ninth Circuit

Citizens for Constitutional Fairness v. Jackson County

388 F. App'x 710

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 20, 2010

Docket09-35653

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 388 F. App'x 710 (Citizens for Constitutional Fairness v. Jackson County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Citizens for Constitutional Fairness v. Jackson County, 388 F. App'x 710 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

*711 We reverse. At oral argument, appel-lees conceded that the Measure 37 waivers themselves were not contracts and argued that they were evidence of a contract between the property owners and the County. However the waivers do not show that there was any offer by Jackson County, acceptance by the property owners or consideration. See C.R. Shaw Wholesale Co. v. Hackbarth, 102 Or. 80, 201 P. 1066, 1067 (1921). Indeed, the waivers disavow any promise to the property owners: “Jackson County does not promise Claimant(s) that Claimant(s) will eventually be able to put the property to any particular use.” ER-63-7. Because there is no contract, appel-lees fail to state a Contracts Clause violation.

Nor does Measure 49 implicate separation of powers doctrine. The waivers were administrative decisions, not court judgments.

REVERSED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM *

*711 We reverse. At oral argument, appel-lees conceded that the Measure 37 waivers themselves were not contracts and argued that they were evidence of a contract between the property owners and the County. However the waivers do not show that there was any offer by Jackson County, acceptance by the property owners or consideration. See C.R. Shaw Wholesale Co. v. Hackbarth, 102 Or. 80, 201 P. 1066, 1067 (1921). Indeed, the waivers disavow any promise to the property owners: “Jackson County does not promise Claimant(s) that Claimant(s) will eventually be able to put the property to any particular use.” ER-63-7. Because there is no contract, appel-lees fail to state a Contracts Clause violation.

Nor does Measure 49 implicate separation of powers doctrine. The waivers were administrative decisions, not court judgments.

REVERSED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 F. App'x 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-for-constitutional-fairness-v-jackson-county-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack