Legal Opinion

Bruner v. Josephine County

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 29, 2010No. 08CV0404; A140018PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSercombe, J.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting a number of claims against Josephine County. The claims were based on the county’s failure to give effect to its Measure 37 waiver of land use restrictions on plaintiffs’ property. The county no longer recognized the waiver after it was repealed by Measure 49. Plaintiffs pleaded that the county’s enforcement of Measure 49 in this manner was a breach of contract and a deprivation of a number of constitutional rights. The trial court concluded that the complaint failed to state cognizable claims for relief. Plaintiffs appeal the judgment dismissing the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning AgencySupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  4. Clackamas County v. HolmesOregon Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Corey v. Department of Land Conservation & DevelopmentOregon Supreme Court · 2008

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Biggerstaff v. Board of County CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  2. Curry v. Clackamas CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  3. Curry v. Clackamas CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  4. Fischer v. Benton CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  5. Bruner v. Josephine CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API