Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society |
|
APPELLANT COURT OPINIONS ON ATTORNEY FEES FROM 150-DAY MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS December 5, 2006
Mandamus Proceedings A county decision for a final action on a permit must occur within 150 days. The 150-Day rules are covered by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS).
The issue is the effect on citizen participation in a county violation of the 150-day rule (ORS 215.427), and a mandamus process that may follow from the failure, to move the land use process out of the jurisdiction of the Josephine County (JO CO) Board of Commissioners (BCC) to the local circuit court, and the award of attorney fees against intervenors. This brochure is one of 11 brochures in the Hugo Neighborhoods education brochure series on 150-Day Violations.1 Circuit Court Attorney Fees Against Intervenors It is clear from Appellant Court opinions that mandamus actions under ORS 215.428(7) are not procedures that the legislature established to provide alternatives to making the land use decisions that ORS 215.428(1) and other statutes require. It is a remedy that the legislature created to deal with circumstances where counties have failed to make the decisions that those statutes require them to make.2&3 In sum, Appelant Court opinions find no basis in trial court's findings to support conclusions that an award of attorney fees are justified against citizens intervening for local governments violation of the law under any of the provisions in ORS 20.075(1)."We agree with intervenor that each of the trial court's grounds for awarding attorney fees against her is inconsistent with our earlier opinion or, for other reasons, is incapable of supporting an award under the criteria in ORS 20.075(1)."2&3 "At the conclusion of our opinion, we reiterated "that there can be no successful mandamus action under [ORS 215.428] unless the county has violated the statutory requirement."2&3 "... the county's failure to abide by the statutory requirement prevented intervenor from exercising her right to express opposition to relator's proposal through the established county hearing and decisionmaking procedures, as much as it necessitated that relator go to court to have its application acted on rather than obtaining the decision from the county that the county was required by law to make."2&3 Court of Appeals
More Information. Would you like to learn more? Contact a member of the Land Use Committee of the Hugo Neighborhood. Disclaimer. This brochure is as much about providing information and provoking questions as it is about opinions concerning the adequacy of findings of fact and land use decisions. It does not provide recommendations to citizens and it is not legal advice. It does not take the place of a lawyer. If citizens use information contained in this paper, it is their personal responsibility to make sure that the facts and general information contained in it are applicable to their situation.
|
@ 2010 Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society |