# Younger v. City of Portland

> Oregon Supreme Court · March 29, 1988 · 305 Or. 346

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9851461

## Case

- **Full name:** YOUNGER Et Al, Petitioners on Review, v. CITY OF PORTLAND Et Al, Respondents on Review
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 29, 1988
- **Citations:** 305 Or. 346; 752 P.2d 262
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Peterson
- **Judges:** Lent, Peterson, Jones
- **Cited by:** 93 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/9851461

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9851461. Public record. Not legal advice.