Feitelson v. City of Salem

1 Citing case

  1. Salosha, Inc. v. Lane County

    201 Or. App. 138 (Or. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 15 times
    Discussing the standard of review applicable to writs sought under ORS 34.040(c) (lack of substantial evidence)

    Although it originated in the world of judicial review of the actions of state administrative agencies, the substantial reason rule also applies to the orders of local governments that are reviewed by writ of review rather than under the Administrative Procedures Act. See Sunnyside Neighborhood v. Clackamas Co. Comm., 280 Or 3, 21, 569 P2d 1063 (1977) (imposing requirement that local governments provide adequate finding and reasons in orders); Feitelson v. City of Salem, 46 Or App 815, 820, 613 P2d 489 (1980) ("An agency must issue findings which explain the basis of its decision."). Even though we can trace through the record a legitimate path by which the hearings official could have reached his conclusion regarding the significance of petitioners' violation, our task on judicial review is not to serve as a pathfinder.