Legal Opinion

Larson v. Multnomah County

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 22, 1993No. LUBA 92-100; CA A79157PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeits, P. J.

Petitioners seek Supreme Court review and, thereby, our reconsideration of our opinion holding that their state and federal constitutional taking claims are not ripe for adjudication, and rejecting their argument that they come within the “futility exception” to the ripeness requirement. We allow reconsideration, clarify our opinion and adhere to it as clarified.

The matters that we reconsider are narrow, and we do not restate the facts or the reasoning in our earlier opinion except as they relate directly to the points that we address. Petitioners quote, with apparent disapproval, the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Fifth Avenue Corp. v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Suess Builders Co. v. City of BeavertonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Cope v. City of Cannon BeachOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Joyce v. Multnomah CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  5. Larson v. Multnomah CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Boise Cascade Corp. v. State Board of ForestryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  2. Curran v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  3. THUNDERBIRD HOTELS, LLC v. City of PortlandDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2009
  4. Murray v. State of OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API