Babcock v. Sherwood School District 88J

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the defendants “did not engage in a quasi-adjudicative process, despite the fact that their decision applied only to the particular situation of two indi- viduals”
• concluding that the defendants “did not engage in a quasi-adjudicative process, despite the fact that their decision applied only to the particular situation of two indi- viduals”
• explaining that “general factors such as those named by plaintiffs—factors that the governing body is not ‘bound to apply’—are not pre- existing criteria that significantly limit the board’s discre- tion and thereby create a quasi-adjudication”
• explaining that “general factors such as those named by plaintiffs—factors that the governing body is not ‘bound to apply’—are not pre- existing criteria that significantly limit the board’s discre- tion and thereby create a quasi-adjudication”
• affirming dismissal of petition for writ of review, concluding that, because challenged decision was not “quasi-judicial,” circuit court lacked jurisdiction under ORS 34.040
• “[D]efendants did not engage in a quasi- adjudicative process, despite the fact that their decision applied only to the particular situation of two individu- als.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).