Legal Opinion
Schoonover v. Klamath County
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided February 13, 1991No. 88-165-CV; CA A61567PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.
Defendant appeals a money judgment for inverse condemnation in favor of plaintiff, entered after a jury trial. We conclude that the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v. and reverse.
Plaintiff claims that an ordinance, as applied in the form of a condition to development of a proposed subdivision, effected a “temporary regulatory taking” of his property under Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that there was no taking under either provision.
In 1981, the Klamath County…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. BeckwithSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Fifth Avenue Corp. v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Suess Builders Co. v. City of BeavertonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Benson v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
- David Hill Development, LLC v. City of Forest GroveDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2010
- Benson v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
- Benson v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
- Jones v. City of McMinnvilleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007