ORS 34.030
Jurisdiction to grant writ

  • petition for writ
  • time limit

The writ shall be allowed by the circuit court, or, in counties where the county court has judicial functions, by the county court wherein the decision or determination sought to be reviewed was made, upon the petition of the plaintiff, describing the decision or determination with convenient certainty, and setting forth the errors alleged to have been committed therein. The petition shall be signed by the plaintiff or the attorney of the plaintiff, and verified by the certificate of an attorney to the effect that the attorney has examined the process or proceeding, and the decision or determination therein, and that it is erroneous as alleged in the petition. A writ shall not be allowed unless the petition therefor is made within 60 days from the date of the decision or determination sought to be reviewed. [Amended by 1979 c.772 §9a]

Notes of Decisions

This section relates to venue and is not jurisdictional. Dietz v. Ott, 8 Or App 634, 495 P2d 1212 (1972)

A motion to quash is the proper means of challenging a writ not filed within the time limit imposed by this section. Meury v. Jarrell, 16 Or App 239, 517 P2d 1221 (1974), aff’d 269 Or 606, 525 P2d 1286 (1974)

An amended petition under this section which states sufficient facts can be filed after the 60-day time limit has expired, so long as the original filing was within that time limit. Meury v. Jarrell, 16 Or App 239, 517 P2d 1221 (1974), aff’d269 Or 606, 525 P2d 1286 (1974); NW Environmental Defense Center v. The City Council for the City of Portland, 20 Or App 234, 531 P2d 284 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

Only the entry of the formal written judgment, or in the case of a zoning change, the adoption of the ordinance, begins the 60-day limitation period. Duddles v. City Council of West Linn, 21 Or App 310, 535 P2d 583 (1975)

Date of “decision or determination” which had effect of beginning period for appeal under this section was when city council voted and announced its decision to deny zone change and not date of entry of approved minutes of meeting. Hitchcock v. McMinnville City Council, 47 Or App 897, 615 P2d 409 (1980), aff’don other grounds, 291 Or 404, 631 P2d 777 (1981)

Where no vote was taken, or decision made at public hearing on conditional use permit application, and county’s procedures provided for entry of the final order in county journal, date of the journal entry was controlling date for determining the 60-day statutory period within which to commence writ of review action. Lyford v. Board of Commissioners for Benton County/Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, 59 Or App 585, 651 P2d 1355 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Petition for writ of review is not sufficient where petition contains merely conclusory allegations of error, does not inform court of evidence to be addressed and does not provide sufficient facts to enable court to determine whether to issue writ. Gruetzke v. City of Gresham, 108 Or App 325, 815 P2d 228 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Court could not obtain jurisdiction over time-barred writ of review by permitting amendment of complaint for declaratory judgment to include petition and relating petition back to date complaint was filed. Shipp v. Multnomah County, 133 Or App 583, 891 P2d 1345 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

10 WLJ 371 (1974)


Last accessed
May 30, 2023