stating that standard of review for analogous review of LUBA order reviewing a local government decision for whether it is supported by “substantial evidence in the whole record”
How later courts described this case
- stating that standard of review for analogous review of LUBA order reviewing a local government decision for whether it is supported by “substantial evidence in the whole record”
- noting that, under LUBA provisions analogous to APA, whether particular decision is supported by substantial evidence depends upon evaluation of unique evidence in each case
- noting the difference between judicial review of findings of fact by LUBA and judicial review of LUBA’s review of a local government’s findings of fact
- “[W]here LUBA has prop- erly understood and applied the ‘substantial evidence’ test of ORS 197.835(8)(a)(C), a reviewing court should affirm its order, notwithstanding the reviewing court’s disagreement with LUBA as to whether the evidence is ‘substantial.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PETERSON, C. J.,
concurring.
The LUBA order suggests that LUBA may have evaluated the evidence as required by Part II of the majority opinion. However, because there is some question whether LUBA misapplied the substantial evidence test, I concur in the remand to LUBA.
The remand to LUBA does not necessarily require a new hearing. What is required is a reconsideration in light of the rules stated in the majority opinion. If LUBA affirms the City’s decision, on the substantial evidence question, the order should state that LUBA considered all the evidence in the whole record and that the evidence supporting the City’s decision is substantial, after giving full consideration to all the evidence, whether it bolsters or detracts from the evidence supporting the decision.
Jones, J., joins in this concurring opinion.