PRENTICE v. LCDC

83-ACK-14 (Amended); CA A28429.

692 P.2d 642 (1984)

71 Or.App. 394

In the matter of Clackamas County's Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Measures. William H. PRENTICE, Charles T. Smith, Petitioners, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided December 19, 1984.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Vincent Salvi, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners.

Richard D. Wasserman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., James Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., and Michael Huston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.

Michael E. Judd, Asst. County Counsel, Oregon City, filed a brief amicus curiae for Clackamas County.

Garry P. McMurry and Rankin, McMurry, VavRosky & Doherty, Portland, filed a brief amicus curiae for Carl M. Halvorson and John Smeed.

Before BUTTLER, P.J., and WARREN and ROSSMAN, JJ.


BUTTLER, Presiding Judge.

Petitioners seek judicial review of an order of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) acknowledging that Clackamas County's Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations comply with statewide planning goals. They contend that the acknowledgment was based on the commission's application of a "substantial compliance" standard specifically disapproved in Marion County v. Federation for Sound Planning,

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