Bridgeview Vineyards, Inc. v. State Land Board

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
  • Date Filed: 08-28-2013
  • Case #: A144945
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Nakamoto, J. for the Court; Haselton, C.J.; and Wollheim, P.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

If parties dispute material facts essential to an agency's order, the circuit court must allow a petitioner to supplement the administrative record through an evidentiary hearing.

Bridgeview appealed a circuit court decision upholding the Division of State Lands (DSL) denial of an emergency permit to place riprap along a stream to prevent erosion. A key fact in this decision was whether the riprap would be placed within the stream bed. The circuit court decided this question based on facts alleged in the record created at the summary judgment stage. On appeal, Bridgeview argued there was no whole record because there were genuine questions of fact that were material and remained unanswered. Furthermore, Bridgeview argued the circuit court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to answer these questions of fact. DSL argued the summary judgment record contained substantial evidence supporting DSL's order and, accordingly, the circuit court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Court held there were questions of fact that warranted further exploration at trial. The circuit court erred in granting the summary judgment motion without an evidentiary hearing. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search