DLCD v. Crook County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: July 27, 2011 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, by and through the Department of Land Conservation and Development, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CROOK COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, Defendant-Respondent, and SHELLEY HUDSPETH, Intervenor-Respondent. Crook County Circuit Court 08CV0045 A142004 Gary Lee Williams, Judge. On appellant's petition for reconsideration filed June 14, 2011, and intervenorrespondent's response to appellant's petition for reconsideration filed June 28, 2011. Opinion filed May 11, 2011. 242 Or App 580, ___ P3d ___ (2011). John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Stephanie L. Striffler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for petition. Edward P. Fitch, Lisa DT Klemp, and Bryant, Emerson & Fitch, LLP, for response. Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Duncan, Judge. PER CURIAM Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified. 1 PER CURIAM 2 Appellant, State of Oregon by and through the Department of Land 3 Conservation and Development (DLCD), seeks reconsideration of our decision in DLCD 4 v. Crook County, 242 Or App 580, ___ P3d ___ (2011). We allow DLCD's petition for 5 reconsideration and adhere to our opinion as modified. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Specifically, DLCD seeks reconsideration of the final two sentences of the second paragraph of footnote 5 of our opinion that state: "On appeal, the parties make different assertions as to whether the numerator in the expenditure ratio is approximately $500,000, as determined by the county, or approximately $900,000, as noted by the circuit court. We need not resolve that issue because it was not assigned as error on appeal. See ORAP 5.45(1) (providing, in part, that '[n]o matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claim of error was preserved in the lower court and is assigned as error in the opening brief in accordance with this rule')." 242 Or App at 584 n 5. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 On reconsideration we modify the second paragraph of footnote 5 to state as follows: "On appeal, the parties make different assertions as to whether the numerator in the expenditure ratio is approximately $500,000, as determined by the county, or approximately $900,000, as noted by the circuit court. Given our analysis and disposition, we need not address and resolve any dispute in that regard." 24 25 Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified. 1
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.
