Legal Opinion
Dodd v. Hood River County
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided July 22, 1993No. LUBA 91-116 CA A73984 SC S39683, SC S39684PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoomissen, J.
Hood River County (the county) denied Thomas and Doris Dodd’s (petitioners) application for a conditional use permit to build a single-family dwelling in a forestry zone. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) affirmed. Dodd v. Hood River County, 22 Or LUBA 711 (1992). The Court of Appeals also affirmed. Dodd v. Hood River County, 115 Or App 139, 836 P2d 1373 (1992).
The issues before this court are (1) whether LUBA’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record; (2) whether petitioners’ property has been “taken” by the county under Article I, section 18, of the Oregon…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Agins v. City of TiburonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Thomas Dodd and Doris Dodd v. Hood River County, an Oregon Municipal Corporation, and State of Oregon, Defendant-Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Thomas Dodd Doris Dodd v. Hood River County, and State of Oregon, Defendant-Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- League of Oregon Cities v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 2002
- Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of ForestryOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- Hans Hoeck v. City of Portland, a Municipal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.