Case Name: OREGON BUSINESS PLANNING COUNCIL, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent; RIVIERA MOTORS, INC., Petitioner, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Respondent; 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON, Petitioner, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, et al, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1981-04-27
Citations: 51 Or. App. 867
Docket Number: CA 16617, SC 27512; CA 17091, SC 27512; CA 17093, SC 27512
Parties: OREGON BUSINESS PLANNING COUNCIL, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent. RIVIERA MOTORS, INC., Petitioner, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Respondent. 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON, Petitioner, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, et al, Respondents.
Judges: Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Thornton and Warden, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 51
Pages: 867–868

Head Matter:
Submitted on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court March 31,
petitions for review dismissed April 27, 1981
OREGON BUSINESS PLANNING COUNCIL, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent. RIVIERA MOTORS, INC., Petitioner, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Respondent. 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON, Petitioner, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, et al, Respondents.
(CA 16617, SC 27512) (CA 17091, SC 27512) (CA 17093, SC 27512)
627 P2d 894
Kevin L. Hanway, Portland, appeared for petitioner Oregon Business Planning Council (CA 16617).
Diane W. Spies, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner Riviera Motors, Inc. (CA 17091).
Robert E. Stacey, Jr., Portland, argued the cause for petitioner 1000 Friends of Oregon (CA 17093).
Terry D. Morgan, Morgan & Shonkwiler, P. C., Portland, appeared as Parties Amicus (CA 17093).
Al Laue, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents (CA 16617, 17091 and 17093). Appearing with him were James M. Brown, Attorney General, and Mary J. Diets, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Thornton and Warden, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
These cases are before us on remand from the Supreme Court, 290 Or 741, 626 P2d 350 (1981), which reversed our denial of motions to dismiss the petitions for review. Pursuant to that mandate, the petition for review in each of the captioned causes is dismissed.
Petitions for review dismissed.