RESIDENTS OF ROSEMONT v. METRO

(LUBA Nos. 99-009, 99-010; CA A110947)

21 P.3d 1108 (2001)

173 Or. App. 321

RESIDENTS OF ROSEMONT and David T. Adams, Respondents, v. METRO, Respondent, and Rosemont Property Owners Assoc., Olive Kuhl, and Judy Eiselius, Petitioners, and Larry Petersen and Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland, Respondents. City of Lake Oswego and City of West Linn, Respondents-Cross-Petitioners, and Lake Oswego School District No. 7J, West Linn-Wilsonville School District 3JT, City of Tualatin, and Clackamas County, Respondents, v. Metro, Respondent-Cross-Respondent, and Rosemont Property Owners Association, Olive Kuhl, and Judy Eiselius, Petitioners-Cross-Respondents, and Larry Petersen and Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland, Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided April 4, 2001.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David B. Smith, Tigard, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioners-cross-respondents.

Larry S. Shaw, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent cross-respondent Metro.

Jeffrey G. Condit, Lake Oswego, argued the cause for respondents-cross-petitioners City of Lake Oswego and City of West Linn. With him on the brief was Miller, Nash, LLP, Portland.

Christine M. Cook, filed a brief for respondents Residents of Rosemont and David T. Adams, adopting the brief of respondents-cross-petitioners City of Lake Oswego and City of West Linn.

No appearance for respondents Lake Oswego School District No. 7J, West Linn-Wilsonville School District 3JT, City of Tualatin,Clackamas County, Larry Petersen, and Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland.

Kathryn S. Beaumont, Senior Deputy City Attorney, filed a brief amicus curiae for City of Portland.

Before DEITS, Chief Judge, and LANDAU and BREWER, Judges.


DEITS, C.J.

Petitioners Rosemont Property Owners Assoc., Kuhl and Eiselius (petitioners) seek review of, and respondents City of Lake Oswego and City of West Linn (cities) cross-petition from, LUBA's decision remanding Metro's decision that amended its urban growth boundary (UGB) to add an 830-acre area. We affirm on the petition and reverse and remand on the cross-petition.

The parties agree that the facts are correctly...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases