Case Name: WASHINGTON COUNTY, Respondent on Review, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Petitioner on Review, and MCKAY CREEK VALLEY ASSOCIATION, Intervenor; Bruce BERGEY, Respondent on Review, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Petitioner on Review, and MCKAY CREEK VALLEY ASSOCIATION, Intervenor
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1997-10-23
Citations: 326 Or. 66
Docket Number: CA A91703; CA A91734; SC S44557
Parties: WASHINGTON COUNTY, Respondent on Review, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Petitioner on Review, and MCKAY CREEK VALLEY ASSOCIATION, Intervenor. Bruce BERGEY, Respondent on Review, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Petitioner on Review, and MCKAY CREEK VALLEY ASSOCIATION, Intervenor.
Judges: Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Fadeley, Graber, and Durham, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 326
Pages: 66–67

Head Matter:
On petition for review filed September 24,
petition for review allowed; decision of the Court of Appeals vacated; case remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration October 23, 1997
WASHINGTON COUNTY, Respondent on Review, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Petitioner on Review, and MCKAY CREEK VALLEY ASSOCIATION, Intervenor. Bruce BERGEY, Respondent on Review, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Petitioner on Review, and MCKAY CREEK VALLEY ASSOCIATION, Intervenor.
(CA A91703 (Control))
(CA A91734; SC S44557)
947 P2d 206
Stephanie L. Striffler, Special Counsel to the Attorney General, Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem, filed the petition for petitioner on review.
No appearance contra.
Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Fadeley, Graber, and Durham, Justices.
Kulongoski, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Lane County v. LCDC, 325 Or 569, 942 P2d 278 (1997).