# Lane County v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · January 24, 1996 · 138 Or. App. 635

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630767

## Case

- **Full name:** LANE COUNTY, Petitioner, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Respondent, and 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON, Intervenor
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** January 24, 1996
- **Citations:** 138 Or. App. 635; 910 P.2d 414; 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 54
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Leeson
- **Judges:** Riggs, Landau, Leeson
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9630767

## Opinion text

LEESON, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the lead opinion’s holding and reasoning. However, I do so reluctantly with respect to its conclusion that certain provisions of the challenged rules are inconsistent with ORS 215.213(1), as the Supreme Court interpreted that statute in Brentmar v. Jackson County, 321 Or 481 , 900 P2d 1030 (1995).
Generally, it is not necessary or appropriate for a judge of this court to write separately to signify agreement that a result is compelled by a Supreme Court opinion with which the judge disagrees. I nevertheless indulge in that practice here, because I am of the view that, beyond being wrongly decided, Brentmar is contrary to and threatens to subvert the clearly intended and fundamental objective of the agricultural lands statutes, i.e., the preservation of farm land for farm use.
Although this court is bound by the Supreme Court’s statutory interpretations, the state legislature is not constrained to let those interpretations go uncorrected.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630767. Public record. Not legal advice.