Webb v. Dept. of Corrections

Annotate this Case

Filed: March 19, 1998

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

JOHN R. WEBB, LYNN OGEN, THE JOHN
R. WEBB FAMILY TRUST, JAMES LITTLE,
LYNA LITTLE, THE LYNA LITTLE TRUST,
BILLY COOPER, BETTY COOPER, DEBORAH
PHILLIPS, HAROLD WICKERSHAM, BERNARD
J. STORMBERG, DOLORES P. STORMBERG,
THE CITIZENS GROUP, PEGGIE FOY,
ELAINE KILLEN, BRUCE KILLEN, STEVE
ARNOLD, GRETCHEN ARNOLD, and
JOHN L. TRAYNOR, MD,

Petitioners,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
CORRECTIONS FACILITY SITING
AUTHORITY and JOHN A. KITZHABER,

Respondents.

(SC S44330)

In Banc

On judicial review of the decisions of the Department of Corrections, the Corrections Facility Siting Authority, and the Governor.

Argued and submitted March 3, 1998.

John R. Huttl, of Frohnmayer, Deatherage, Pratt, Jamieson & Clarke, Medford, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioners.

Robert M. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

PER CURIAM

The decisions of the Department of Corrections, the Corrections Facility Siting Authority, and the Governor are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

This is a case of direct review of decisions by the Corrections Facility Siting Authority and the Governor to approve, and by the Department of Corrections to site, a prison at Stimpson Gulch in Jackson County.(1) Petitioners own property in the vicinity of the proposed site. They challenge the siting decisions, raising several statutory and constitutional issues. We have considered all of petitioners' challenges, but conclude that they either are controlled by this court's decision in City of Wilsonville v. Dept. of Corrections, 326 Or 152, ___ P2d ___ (1997), or otherwise are not well taken.

The decisions of the Department of Corrections, the Corrections Facility Siting Authority, and the Governor are affirmed.

1. See ORS 421.611 to 421.630 (setting out siting process and authorizing Supreme Court review of siting decisions).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.