# Shephard v. Department of Community Corrections of Washington County

> Oregon Supreme Court · June 9, 1982 · 293 Or. 191

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6914564

## Case

- **Full name:** SHEPHARD, on Review v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF THE STATE OF OREGON, on Review
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 9, 1982
- **Citations:** 293 Or. 191; 646 P.2d 1322; 1982 Ore. LEXIS 956
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tanzer
- **Judges:** Lent, Tanzer
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6914564

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the projects that the Acts are designed to reach are "usually site specific; that is, the governmental agency sets out to acquire certain property for the program"
- noting that the terms “programs or project” indicated that the legislation was concerned with the “displacement of persons on a relatively large scale”

## Opinion text

TANZER, J.,
concurring.
It is clear from the legislative history that ORS 281.045 through 281.105 were added to Oregon’s laws regulating condemnation with the intent of ameliorating some of the harsh consequences of the exercise of eminent domain for large new public programs which require the taking of large amounts of private land, such as urban renewal. The majority opinion is somewhat timid on this point, construing the statutory word “acquisition” to apply only to specific site acquisition because new programs are usually site specific. It deems site specificity controlling because it is an attribute of condemnation transactions. If the goverment is determined to obtain specific property, then condemnation is either employed or it is explicitly of *206 implicitly threatened. It is preferable to straightforwardly articulate the rationale which the majority necessary implies: that “acquisition,” as used in ORS 281.045(l)(a), occurs where the government program obtains property by condemnation or where condemnation would be resorted to if agreement were not reached.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6914564. Public record. Not legal advice.