Legal Opinion

Bell v. City of Hood River

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 21, 2016No. 120088CC; A156481PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, P. J.

Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action that they brought against the City of Hood River and a developer, NBW Hood River, LLC. Plaintiffs sought to have declared unconstitutional, under Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution, the city’s imposition of a nonwaivable fee that must be paid to appeal land use decisions of the city’s planning commission to the city council. On the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that Article I, section 10, did not apply to the city’s fee and dismissed plaintiffs’ action. We…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Priest v. PearceOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Horton v. Oregon Health & Science UniversityOregon Supreme Court · 2016
  3. State Ex Rel. Oregonian Publishing Co. v. DeizOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Doe v. Medford School District 549CCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  5. Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'LearyOregon Supreme Court · 1987

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Verizon Wireless (Vaw), LLCCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  2. Schroeder v. Clackamas Cnty. BankCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API