Hammer v. Clackamas County

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that, where the petitioners did not discuss a particular statute before LUBA or argue its applicability to the county’s action, we would not reach the question of whether the notice requirements of that statute had been satisfied
• reasoning that, where the petitioners did not discuss a particular statute before LUBA or argue its applicability to the county’s action, we would not reach the question of whether the notice requirements of that statute had been satisfied

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).