Philip D. Thompson v. Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District

Good Law
701 F.2d 99·1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 29829
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 9, 198380-3375California1,098 words

Opinion

Opinion

Both parties accept the district court’s findings of fact. See 496 F.Supp. 530 (D.Or.1980). Briefly, plaintiff owned vacant land suitable for development within the defendant Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District. Plaintiff also held an option to purchase adjacent land which would improve access to plaintiff’s land and permit subdivision into a larger number of building lots. The District was not aware of plaintiff’s development plan or of his option to purchase the adjacent property. In May 1976 defendant District filed a condemnation action in Oregon Circuit Court to acquire plaintiff’s land for use as a public park. Plaintiff permitted the option on the adjacent land to run out. In June 1977 the District abandoned the condemnation action, having concluded that the projected park would be too costly and difficult to develop. Pursuant to Oregon law, plaintiff recovered costs and expenses incurred in the condemnation proceeding including expert witness and attorney fees. Or.Rev. Stat. § 35.335 (1981).

Plaintiff filed this action in federal court to recover damages for an alleged taking of his property without just compensation in violation of the United States and Oregon…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.