Measure 37 is Unconstitutional, Oregon Circuit Court Says

Stromberg, Meghan
December 2005
Planning;Dec2005, Vol. 71 Issue 11, p50
Trade Publication
The article reports on Oregon Circuit Court Judge Mary James' ruling granting a motion for summary judgment finding that Measure 37 violates the Oregon and federal constitutions. Measure 37 requires governments to either pay property owners for the lost value of property due to land use regulations or waive those regulations. The main reason cited by the court for its ruling is that the law impairs the legislative body's plenary power. Measure 37 grants certain privileges or immunities to a particular class of people, rather than equally to all citizens, the court concluded. The court noted that permitting pre-owners to recover based on what their properties are worth today has no rational relation to the aim of Measure 37 of compensating property owners for the reduced fair market value of their property interest.


Related Articles

  • WHAT IF SLAUGHTER-HOUSE HAD BEEN DECIDED DIFFERENTLY? Roosevelt III, Kermit // Indiana Law Review;2011, Vol. 45 Issue 1, p61 

    The article explores a counterfactual regarding the U.S. Supreme Court Slaughter-House Cases regarding the Privileges and Immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution. It examines the dissents in the case and offers information about possible changes to the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses...

  • FRCP 26 VS. FRE 408: WHY SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS SHOULD BE PRIVILEGED AGAINST THIRD-PARTY DISCOVERY. Sher, Andrew // Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution;2014, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p295 

    The article discusses the need for courts to recognize a settlement negotiation privilege. Topics discussed include history and power of courts to recognize new privileges, settlement negotiations and FRE 408 that governs the admissibility of compromise offers and negotiations and issues relate...

  • REAL PROPERTY. DEIKE, C. J. // Bench & Bar of Minnesota;Oct2011, Vol. 68 Issue 9, p43 

    The article presents information on court cases related to real property in Minnesota. In the case Larson v. Lakeview Lofts LLC, it was agreed by the court that Frostad and Lakeview had breached their fiduciary duties. Whether the taking of land for the access road constituted a public use or...

  • IOWA. Michaels, Ellen // University of Denver Water Law Review;Fall2009, Vol. 13 Issue 1, p215 

    The article discusses the court case, Gannon v. Rumbaugh, plaintiffs accused the defendants have caused the flooding to their farmlands in Iowa. The farmlands and estate of both the complainants and the defendants lie adjacent to each other. The District Court of Jasper County found that the...

  • Recent Developments in Comprehensive Planning Law. Sullivan, Edward J. // Urban Lawyer;Summer2011, Vol. 43 Issue 3, p823 

    The article focuses on court decisions involving the status of the comprehensive plan in the U.S. land use regulatory process for the year ending September 30, 2010. In Hen-nen v. Town of Pomfret Planning and Zoning Commission case, the court upheld the town's actions on the basis of the record...

  • The path to equity. Barrison, Ben; Redman, Nicholas // Estates Gazette;5/31/2008, Issue 821, p130 

    The article discusses court cases related to estoppel. These cases include Eyestrom Ltd. versus Hoptonacre Homes Ltd., wherein the Court of Appeal ruled that promissory estoppel cannot be used in the way in which Eyestorm was purporting to use it, namely to create a new cause of action in favour...


    The article discusses a court case in which the appellant proposes to act under section nine of the Roads Ordinance Act (ROA) and seize land belonging to the respondent to build a public road. The judge held that section nine of the ROA contravened section six of the Constitution of the...

  • 10th Circuit Rules on Immunity for ADR Provider.  // Dispute Resolution Journal;Feb-Apr2007, Vol. 62 Issue 1, p6 

    The article reports on a suit against the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) by an investor in the case of Pfannenstiel vs. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith. The investor had lost an arbitration against his brokerage firm. Upon learning that evidence from the arbitration was...

  • Turning up the heat on expert witnesses. Dowell, Katy // Lawyer;1/17/2011, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p6 

    The article reports on the decision of seven Supreme Court Justices in Great Britain regarding the issue of immunity of expert witnesses from professional negligence suits.


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics