ENTRY FORM | ||
| CALENDAR STATUS: Active | ||
 | | |
SC Number: | | S53777 |
CA Number: | | A130488 |
Case Title: | | Costco Wholesale Corp. v. City of Beaverton |
Date: | | 03/05/2007 |
Time: | | 09:00 AM |
Location: | | Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College |
Attorneys: | | Alan Andrew Rappleyea for petitioner on review Jack L. Orchard for respondent on review |
Comments: | | |
Statement of Issues: | | Costco Wholesale Corporation v. City of Beaverton, S53777, A130488. Petitioner City of Beaverton (City) seeks review of a Court of Appeals decision that reversed and remanded, in part, a decision of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The City enacted a number of ordinances that purported to annex several properties as "island" annexations under ORS 222.750. ORS 222.750 permits a city to unilaterally annex territory that is "surrounded by" the corporate boundaries of the city, without the consent of property owners or residents. Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc., and BOLD, LLC (property owners) were among a number of property owners that appealed to LUBA, and are the only property owners still involved in this proceeding. Before LUBA, property owners argued, in part, that ORS 222.750 requires that the property to be annexed must be adjacent to the city boundaries on all sides. LUBA determined that although the statute requires that there be territory not within the city that touches or is adjacent to the city boundaries, the statute does not require that the property to be annexed be adjacent to the city boundaries. Property owners appealed. The Court of Appeals determined, in part, that the territory that is surrounded by the city's boundaries must be the same as the area to be annexed. The court next turned to the meaning of "surrounded by, " examining the text of the statute in context, then turning to legislative history. The court concluded that "surrounded by" means that the territory to be annexed must be completely enclosed by and contiguous with the corporate boundaries of the annexing city. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reported at 206 Or App 380, 136 P3d 1219 (2006). The City petitioned for review. On review, the issue is whether the word "surrounded" in ORS 222.750 means contiguous or touching on all sides. These summaries of cases in which the Supreme Court has allowed review are prepared for the benefit of members of the media to assist them in reporting the court’s activities to the public. Parties and practitioners should not rely on the summaries, or the statement of issues to be decided in the summaries, as indicating the questions that the Supreme Court will consider on review. Regarding the questions that the Supreme Court may consider on review, see Oregon Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.20. |
Justice(s) NOT Participating: | ||