Legal Opinion

Hood River County v. Mazzara

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 28, 2004No. 010058DG; A118596PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

Defendant appeals a conviction for violating Hood River County Ordinances (HRCO) under which the owner of a dog may not allow it “to become a public nuisance * * *” by “[d]isturb[ing] any person by frequent or prolonged noises [.]” HRCO 6.16.010; HRCO 6.08.140(E). Defendant argues that the ordinances are invalid as applied to her because ORS 30.935 immunizes farm practices from the application of local government ordinances. We reverse.

ORS 30.935 provides:

“Any local government * * * ordinance or regulation * * * that makes a farm practice a nuisance or trespass or provides for its abatement…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Velda J. Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLCTennessee Supreme Court · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API