State ex rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego

856 P.2d 319, 121 Or. App. 486, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1125
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJuly 7, 1993
Docket92-1-134; CA A76227
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 856 P.2d 319 (State ex rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego) 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
State ex rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego, 856 P.2d 319, 121 Or. App. 486, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1125 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

DEITS, P. J.

Defendant City of Lake Oswego appeals from a judgment directing it to grant plaintiffs partition application in this mandamus action under ORS 227.178(7).1 We reverse.

The city took final action to deny the application after plaintiff brought the mandamus action, but before the action was finally adjudicated. In Edney v. Columbia County Board of Commissioners, 119 Or App 6, 849 P2d 1125, rev allowed 317 Or 162 (1993), decided after the parties filed their briefs here, we construed ORS 215.428(7), the provision that is applicable to counties and that parallels ORS 227.178(7), and held that mandamus jurisdiction is lost and the LUBA appeal process becomes exclusive if “a county’s belated land use decision is made after a mandamus action has been brought but before it has been finally adjudicated.” 119 Or App at 12.

At oral argument, plaintiff acknowledged that Edney is controlling, but contended that it was wrongly decided. We recognized in Edney that there was an inherent conflict between the mandamus statutes and the LUBA review statutes, and that full literal effect cannot be given to both. We acknowledged in that decision that there are persuasive arguments on both sides of this issue. However, it was our conclusion that the legislature intended that the LUBA process, in which land use issues can be reviewed on their merits by the body to whom the legislature has assigned that task, is preferred over compulsory circuit court relief. We adhere to that view and to our decision in Edney.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss action.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Fraley v. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
948 P.2d 1249 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1997)
Murphy Citizens Advisory Committee v. Josephine County
909 P.2d 180 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1995)
State Ex Rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego
886 P.2d 1074 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1994)
State ex rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego
878 P.2d 403 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
856 P.2d 319, 121 Or. App. 486, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-compass-corp-v-city-of-lake-oswego-orctapp-1993.