Court Opinion

ID: 9575065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:11:09.756408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:53.560186
License: Public Domain

SCHWAB, C. J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but do not agree with footnote 1 which implies that the trial court’s scope of review was governed by ORS 34.040 as it read prior to a 1973 amendment. Oregon Laws 1973, ch 561, p 1262. The older version provided: “The writ shall be allowed in all cases where the inferior court * * * appears to have exercised * * * [its] functions erroneously or arbitrarily.” The newer version states that the writ shall be allowed in all *15cases where the inferior body has “made a finding or order not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence * *
This is a procedural statute. Therefore, the version in effect at the time the case was considered by the trial court is the statute which should govern the scope of review. Although the petition for the writ of review was filed prior to the effective date of the 1973 amendment, the file indicates that the actual review took place after the effective date.
It also follows that the Oregon cases, dealing with scope of review under the older version of ORS 34.040 and relied upon by the majority, may well no longer be authoritative.
Under ORS 34.040 as it now reads, I conclude that the findings challenged here were supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence.