1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 4 P.3d
  5. 4 P.3d 768 (2000)
 

VOLNY v. CITY OF BEND

(LUBA Nos. 98-210, 98-215; CA A109112)

4 P.3d 768 (2000)

168 Or. App. 516

Norbert J. VOLNY, Joan Volny, Norbert A. Volny, and SBV Sales, Inc., Petitioners—Cross-Respondents, and Timothy L. Robinson, Jill C. Lang, Lynn M. Pickney, Richard C. Robinson, Jr., Harvey M. Watt, Marcia Rose, William G. Ellis and Betty Ellis, Co-Trustees of the William and Betty Ellis Revocable Trust u/t/a dated October 8, 1990, Donald O. Carlson, Shirley J.T. Carlson, Richard L. Carlson, Scott D. Carlson, Jill M. Carlson, Randie S. Carlson, Toni M. Carlson, Gladys Steinlicht, Leonard Peverieri, and Kent Couch, Intervenors below, v. CITY OF BEND, Respondent— Cross-Petitioner. Norbert J. Volny, Joan Volny, Norbert A. Volny, and SBV Sales, Inc., Petitioners, and Timothy L. Robinson, Jill C. Lang, Lynn M. Pickney, Richard C. Robinson, Jr., Harvey M. Watt, Marcia Rose, William G. Ellis and Betty Ellis, Co-Trustees of the William and Betty Ellis Revocable Trust u/t/a dated October 8, 1990, Donald O. Carlson, Shirley J.T. Carlson, Richard L. Carlson, Scott D. Carlson, Jill M. Carlson, Randie S. Carlson, Toni M. Carlson, Gladys Steinlicht, Leonard Peverieri, and Kent Couch, Intervenors below, v. Deschutes County, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided June 28, 2000.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Paul J. Speck, Bend, argued the cause for petitioners—cross-respondents. With him on the briefs were Forcum & Speck, Corinne C. Sherton, Eugene, and Johnson & Sherton, P.C.

Ronald L. Marceau, City Attorney, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent— cross petitioner City of Bend.

Bruce W. White, Deputy Legal Counsel, waived appearance for respondent Deschutes County.

Before KISTLER, Presiding Judge, and DEITS, Chief Judge, and BREWER, Judge.

DEITS, C.J.

Petitioners seek review of, and the City of Bend1 cross-petitions from, LUBA's decision remanding the city's amendment of the transportation provisions of its comprehensive plan. LUBA rejected petitioners' contention that the city could not lawfully amend the plan's transportation provisions, because it had not adopted a Transportation System Plan (TSP) in accordance with or by the time specified in the Land Conservation and...

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