Citizens for Constitutional Fairness, an Oregon nonprofit corporation; v. Jackson County, a political Subdivision of the State of Oregon

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CITIZENS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
FAIRNESS, an Oregon nonprofit
corporation; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
JACKSON COUNTY, a political
Subdivision of the State of Oregon,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
DANNY JORDAN,
Defendant,
ROGUE ADVOCATES; et al.,
Defendant-intervenors,
v.
STATE OF OREGON,
Third-party-defendant -
No. 09-35653
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-03015-PA
MEMORANDUM*
FILED
JUL 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 5, 2010
Portland, Oregon
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
We reverse. At oral argument, appellees conceded that the Measure 37
waivers themselves were not contracts and argued that they were evidence of a
contract between the property owners and the County. However the waivers do not
show that there was any offer by Jackson County, acceptance by the property
owners or consideration. See C.R. Shaw Wholesale Co. v. Hackbarth, 201 P. 1066,
1067 (1921). Indeed, the waivers disavow any promise to the property owners:
“Jackson County does not promise Claimant(s) that Claimant(s) will eventually be
able to put the property to any particular use.” ER-63-7. Because there is no
contract, appellees fail to state a Contracts Clause violation.
Nor does Measure 49 implicate separation of powers doctrine. The waivers
were administrative decisions, not court judgments.
REVERSED.

-- 2 of 2 --