Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

STATE OF OREGON, by and through the Department of Land Conser v. tion and De

PER CURIAM

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

PER CURIAM

Appellant, State of Oregon by and through the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), seeks reconsideration of our decision in DLCD v. Crook County, 242 Or App 580, ___ P3d ___(2011). We allow DLCD's petition for reconsideration and adhere to our opinion as modified.

Specifically, DLCD seeks reconsideration of the final two sentences of the second paragraph of footnote 5 of our opinion that state:

"On appeal, the parties make different assertions as to whether the numerator in the expenditure ratio is approximately $500,000, as determined by the county, or approximately $900,000, as noted by the circuit court. We need not resolve that issue because it was not assigned as error on appeal. See ORAP 5.45(1) (providing, in part, that `[n]o matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court and is assigned as error in the opening brief in accordance with this rule')."
242 Or App at 584 n 5.

On reconsideration we modify the second paragraph of footnote 5 to state as follows:

"On appeal, the parties make different assertions as to whether the numerator in the expenditure ratio is approximately $500,000, as determined by the county, or approximately $900,000, as noted by the circuit court. Given our analysis and disposition, we need not address and resolve any dispute in that regard."

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. CROOK COUNTY
(Jul 27, 2011)