Legal Opinion

Siporen v. City of Medford

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 4, 2009No. 2008185; A142541PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, P. J.

Respondent City of Medford (the city) and intervenor-respondent Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) seek judicial review of an order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in which LUBA remanded the city’s decision to approve a site development plan without requiring a more comprehensive traffic impact analysis than the one Wal-Mart provided. ORS 197.850(1). On judicial review, the legal issue is whether LUBA, pursuant to ORS 197.829, was required to affirm the city’s interpretation that its code does not require a more comprehensive traffic impact analysis under these circumstances. Because we…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Clark v. Jackson CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Gage v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Western Land & Cattle, Inc. v. Umatilla CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  5. Foland v. Jackson CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Siporen v. City of MedfordOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  3. Devin Oil Co., Inc. v. Morrow CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  4. Hoffman v. Deschutes CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  5. Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010

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

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

Powered by the Exa API