1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 220 P.3d
  5. 220 P.3d 427 (2009)
 

SIPOREN v. CITY OF MEDFORD

2008185; A142541.

220 P.3d 427 (2009)

231 Or. App. 585

Wendy SIPOREN, Ivend Holen and Medford Citizens for Responsible Development, Respondents, v. CITY OF MEDFORD and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Petitioners.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided November 4, 2009.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John R. Huttl, Medford, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner City of Medford.

Gregory S. Hathaway, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. With him on the brief were Jeff N. Evans and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Kenneth D. Helm, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents.

Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and ARMSTRONG, Judge, and ROSENBLUM, Judge.

HASELTON, P.J.

Respondent City of Medford (the city) and intervenor-respondent Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) seek judicial review of an order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in which LUBA remanded the city's decision to approve a site development plan without requiring a more comprehensive traffic impact analysis than the one Wal-Mart provided. ORS 197.850(1). On judicial review, the legal issue is whether LUBA, pursuant to ORS 197.829, was required to...

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