Adam v. City of Scappoose

2 Citing cases

  1. Lyford v. Bd. of Comm'rs for Benton County

    651 P.2d 1355 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 4 times

    The rules specified that the Board "shall be the judge of the weight and effect to be given to the testimony of each witness and each item of evidence," i.e., the hearing was to be de novo. ORS 215.422(1)(a) requires the county governing body to prescribe in advance the procedure and type of hearing for an appeal from the Planning Department. See Adam v. City of Scappoose, 27 Or. App. 219, 555 P.2d 809 (1976). Although the statute does not require that the county's hearing procedures be adopted by ordinance, they must at least be made available to the general public if they are to serve their intended function.

  2. Ayres v. City Council of Cannon Beach

    572 P.2d 664 (Or. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 3 times

    Portland Baseball Club v. Portland, 142 Or. 13, 18 P.2d 811 (1933). Petitioners' contention is that the ordinance did more than vacate certain streets: it authorized construction of a condominium development and established specific procedures for review of plans, etc., with respect thereto, vesting exclusive authority in the Planning Commission with no appeal. Having established these procedures, they contend, the Council must abide by them, citing Adam v. City of Scappoose, 27 Or. App. 219, 555 P.2d 809 (1976). ( See Sunnyside Neighborhood v. Clackamas Co. Comm., 280 Or. 3, 569 P.2d 1063 (1977).)