120 Or. App. 50 - Baker v. Marion County’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[First,] contrary to [the petitioner's] understanding, LUBA concluded that the proposed amendment does not satisfy either factor. The second problem with the argument is that, even if the proposal complied with one of the two factors, that would not suffice to show need, at least without appropriate consideration of and weight being accorded to the proposal's failure to satisfy the other factor. The need factors are interdependent and, aside from his mistaken contention that compliance with either one is per se sufficient, petitioner does not argue that the county or LUBA misapplied the two factors in combination."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 290 Or. App. 495 - Dep't of Land Conservation v. City of Klamath Falls & Badger Flats, LLP

2. “'(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals;”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 290 Or. App. 495 - Dep't of Land Conservation v. City of Klamath Falls & Badger Flats, LLP

3. “'need' is established if either factor 1 or 2 is satisfied.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 290 Or. App. 495 - Dep't of Land Conservation v. City of Klamath Falls & Badger Flats, LLP