Find Legal Information

FILED: February 02, 2011

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

GERALD L. CURRY
and ROBERTA G. CURRY,
husband and wife,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CLACKAMAS COUNTY,
a political subdivision of the State of Oregon;
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT,
an

agency of the State of Oregon;
LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION,
an agency of the State of Oregon;
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
an agency of the State of Oregon;
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY,
an agency of the State of Oregon;
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
an agency of the State of Oregon,

Defendants-Respondents.

Clackamas County Circuit Court
CV06100319
A139251

Douglas V. Van Dyk, Judge.

Argued and submitted on September 14, 2010.

Kristian Roggendorf argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was O'Donnell Clark & Crew LLP; with him on the amended reply brief were Stephen F. Crew and O'Donnell Clark & Crew LLP.

Stephanie L. Striffler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for State of Oregon respondents. With her on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General.

Steven R. Lounsbury, Clackamas County Counsel, joined the State of Oregon respondents' brief on behalf of respondent Clackamas County.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Sercombe, Judge, and Landau, Judge pro tempore.

SERCOMBE, J.

Vacated in part and remanded with instructions to enter judgment declaring parties' rights as to the fourth through eighth claims in the first amended complaint in a manner consistent with this opinion; otherwise affirmed.

SERCOMBE, J.

Plaintiffs, who filed suit seeking compensation under Measure 37, appeal the subsequent dismissal of that suit following the enactment of Measure 49. On appeal, they advance three general arguments: (1) that Measure 49 does not operate retroactively so as to apply to their "cause of action" under Measure 37; (2) if Measure 49 is retroactive, its application to plaintiffs' suit violates various provisions of the state and federal constitutions, including Article I, sections 18 and 20, of the Oregon Constitution and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (3) the placement of Measure 49 on the ballot violated various provisions of the Oregon Constitution.

We reject the last of those arguments without discussion. In addition, we have already considered and rejected arguments substantially similar to plaintiffs' remaining arguments in other cases. See, e.g., Luethe v. Multnomah County, 240 Or App 263, 269-73, ___ P3d ___ (2010) (concluding that the retroactive application of Measure 49 to the plaintiffs' Measure 37 cause of action for "just compensation" did not violate modern principles of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment); Bleeg v. Metro, 229 Or App 210, 217-18, 211 P3d 302 (2009), rev den, 349 Or 56 (2010) (determining that, because the plaintiffs' Measure 37 claims for just compensation were ongoing at the time Measure 49 became effective, Measure 49 superseded those claims, deprived the trial court's judgments of continuing viability, and rendered the plaintiffs' cases nonjusticiable). We write only to address the contentions raised by plaintiffs that were not considered in prior cases and, ultimately, reject those contentions as well.(1)

Plaintiffs own approximately 116 acres of property in Clackamas County, which they purchased between 1960 and 1972. Prior to the enactment of Measure 49, and pursuant to Measure 37, former ORS 197.352 (2005), amended by Or Laws 2007, ch 424,