The Building Department, LLC v. DCBS
Annotate this CaseFILED: August 4, 2004
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, LLC,
an Oregon limited liability company,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES,
Respondent.
A120158
Judicial Review from Department of Consumer and Business Services.
Argued and submitted June 10, 2004.
Jeffrey E. Potter argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Gardner, Honsowetz, Potter, Budge & Ford.
Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Ortega, Judges.
PER CURIAM
The following rules are held valid: all of OAR chapter 918, division 90; OAR 918-001-0040; OAR 918-001-0120; OAR 918-001-0130; OAR 918-020-0070; OAR 918-020-0090.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner challenges the validity of several rules promulgated by respondent Department of Consumer and Business Services. The nature of those rules is discussed at length in The Building Department, LLC v. DCBS, 180 Or App 486, 43 P3d 1167 (2002), which concerned an earlier challenge by petitioner to the same rules. After our remand, the agency revised its fiscal impact statement. Petitioner again seeks review, raising numerous challenges to the rules pursuant to ORS 183.400. We have considered petitioner's assignments of error and conclude that they are not well taken. A discussion of petitioner's arguments would not benefit the bench or bar.
The following rules are held valid: all of OAR chapter 918, division 90; OAR 918-001-0040; OAR 918-001-0120; OAR 918-001-0130; OAR 918-020-0070; OAR 918-020-0090.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.