Rise, Inc. v. Malheur County

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44994 (2012)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Rise, Inc. v. Malheur County

United States District Court for the District of Oregon
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44994 (2012)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD

Facts

Rise, Inc. (Rise) (plaintiff) was a nonprofit corporation that operated residential group homes for individuals with developmental disabilities. Rise purchased a house in Malheur County (defendant), Oregon, to open a new residential group home. Rise made repairs on the house, hired staff, bought furniture, and selected the first residents of the new home. Before opening, Rise was notified by Malheur County that it required a conditional-use permit to operate a residential home in an exclusive farm-use zone. Rise subsequently applied for a conditional-use permit. The Malheur County Planning Commission held a hearing on Rise’s permit application. At the hearing, several residents expressed their apprehensions related to the proposed residential home, including concerns about safety, property values, and the incompatibility of the home with existing farming operations in the area. The planning commission asked Rise to provide more information, including a traffic analysis, and the hearing was continued. Rise then submitted an amended application for a conditional-use permit but did not provide a traffic analysis, claiming it would not be useful. The amended application instead focused on a number of the concerns expressed by residents and the need for the residential facility. The commission members deliberated on Rise’s application and, after a unanimous vote, made a preliminary decision to deny the permit based on its incompatibility with area farm uses and traffic patterns. The commission published its final decision and denied Rise’s application. Rise filed a notice of appeal to the Malheur County Commission, alleging that the commission denied Rise’s application based on discrimination towards disabled persons in violation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Rise and Malheur County both moved for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sullivan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership