Case ID: or-app_194/html/0492-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted June 10,
    the following rules are held valid: all of OAR chapter 918, division 90; OAR 918-001-0040; OAR 918-001-0120; OAR 918-001-0130; OAR 918-020-0070; and OAR 918-020-0090 August 4, 2004
    THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES, Respondent.
    
    A120158
    95 P3d 237
    Jeffrey E. Potter argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Gardner, Honsowetz, Potter, Budge & Ford.
    Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
    Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Ortega, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Petitioner challenges the validity of several rules promulgated by respondent Department of Consumer and Business Services. The nature of those rules is discussed at length in The Building Department, LLC v. DCBS, 180 Or App 486, 43 P3d 1167 (2002), which concerned an earlier challenge by petitioner to the same rules. After our remand, the agency revised its fiscal impact statement. Petitioner again seeks review, raising numerous challenges to the rules pursuant to ORS 183.400. We have considered petitioner’s assignments of error and conclude that they are not well taken. A discussion of petitioner’s arguments would not benefit the bench or bar.

The following rules are held valid: all of OAR chapter 918, division 90; OAR 918-001-0040; OAR 918-001-0120; OAR 918-001-0130; OAR 918-020-0070; OAR 918-020-0090.