Court Opinion

ID: 9630767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:20:01.6537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:43.283284
License: Public Domain

LEESON, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the lead opinion’s holding and reasoning. However, I do so reluctantly with respect to its conclusion that certain provisions of the challenged rules are inconsistent with ORS 215.213(1), as the Supreme Court interpreted that statute in Brentmar v. Jackson County, 321 Or 481, 900 P2d 1030 (1995).
Generally, it is not necessary or appropriate for a judge of this court to write separately to signify agreement that a result is compelled by a Supreme Court opinion with which the judge disagrees. I nevertheless indulge in that practice here, because I am of the view that, beyond being wrongly decided, Brentmar is contrary to and threatens to subvert the clearly intended and fundamental objective of the agricultural lands statutes, i.e., the preservation of farm land for farm use.
Although this court is bound by the Supreme Court’s statutory interpretations, the state legislature is not constrained to let those interpretations go uncorrected.