Legal Opinion

Yunker v. Means

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 16, 1975PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolman, J.

Plaintiffs and defendants were adjacent property owners with abutting back yards. Plaintiffs brought this suit under ORS 215.185 ① to compel defendants to remove a second story deck at the back of defendants’ house. Plaintiffs alleged that the deck violated the setback line requirements imposed by the county’s zoning ordinances. Defendants appeal from a decree for plaintiffs.

The county’s ordinances required a minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet except for “detached” acces sory buildings, in which case only a 2% foot setback was required. An accessory building was defined as “a subordinate…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Frankland v. City of Lake OswegoOregon Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Misuk v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
  3. Carney v. City of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1952

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Town of Union v. StrongSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1996
  2. Davidson v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning AdjustmentDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
  3. Geoffrey S. Stiff v. Town of BelgradeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2024
  4. Wall Street Management & Capital, Inc. v. CritesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  5. Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020

3 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