Legal Opinion
Dennehy v. City of Portland
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided August 12, 1987No. LUBA 86-098; CA A44018PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*35NEWMAN, J.
Petitioner seeks review of LUBA’s affirmance of the City of Portland’s Tenth Amendment to its Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan.1 The area affected by the amendment is entirely within both the city and Multnomah County. The city council approved the amendment, but the county commission has not acted on it. The sole issue is whether LUBA erred by concluding that approval by the county governing body is unnecessary and that the city’s action alone is sufficient for the amendment to take effect.
ORS 457.010(6) provides:
“ ‘Municipality’ means any county or any city in this state.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Johnson v. Star MacHinery CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1974
- Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v. Board of CommissionersOregon Supreme Court · 1979
- Kekua v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalHawaii Supreme Court · 1979
- Estate of Gold v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
3Cited by7 opinions
- Estate of Gold v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
- Southwood Homeowners Ass'n v. City Council of PhilomathCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
- Benzinger v. Oregon Department of Insurance & FinanceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
- Dennehy v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
- Estate of Gold v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.