(CV12100913) (CA A156284)
respondents on review's petitions for reconsideration
fled August 29, 2019; considered and under advisement on
October 16, 2019.[*]
S. Daniels, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, fled the petition for
reconsideration for respondent on review Lake Oswego
Corporation. Also on the petition for reconsideration was
Crystal S. Chase.
Koch, Tonkon Torp LLP, Portland, fled the petition for
reconsideration for respondent on review City of Lake Oswego.
Also on the petition for reconsideration was Paul Conable.
W. Tienson, Landye Bennett Blumstein LLP, Portland, fled the
response to the petition for reconsideration for petitioners
on review Mark Kramer and Todd Prager. Also on the response
was Gregory M. Adams, Richardson Adams PLLC, Boise, Idaho.
appearance by the State of Oregon.
Or. 692] Before Walters, Chief Justice, and Balmer, Nakamoto,
Flynn, Duncan, Nelson, and Garrett, Justices. [**]
City of Lake Oswego and Lake Oswego Corporation petitioned
for reconsideration seeking clarification of minor details in
the Court's opinion. The city contended that the Court
mischaracterized its position as to whether Oswego Lake is
subject to the public trust doctrine. Lake Oswego Corporation
sought clarification that the opinion did not resolve factual
and legal arguments related to riparian rights to the
waterfront parks. Held: the city's request is
allowed, and the Court modified the opinion to remove those
portions of the opinion where it mischaracterized the
city's position. Lake Oswego Corporation's request is
also allowed, and the Court added a footnote to the opinion
related to the clarification it sought.
petitions for reconsideration are allowed. The former opinion
is modified and adhered to as modified.
Or. 693] FLYNN, J.
the defendants-respondents on review have petitioned for
reconsideration of our decision in Kramer v. City of Lake
Oswego, 365 Or. 422, 446 P.3d 1 (2019). That decision
concluded that, "if Oswego Lake is among the navigable
waterways that the state holds in trust for the public, then
neither the state nor the city may unreasonably interfere
with the public's right to enter the water from the
abutting waterfront parks." Id. at 425. We
reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for
the defendants and remanded the case for the trial court to
resolve "whether the lake is subject to the public trust
doctrine," and, if the public trust doctrine applies,
then "whether the city's restriction on entering the
lake from the waterfront parks unreasonably interferes with
the public's right to enter the lake from the abutting
waterfront parks." Id. at 426. Both the City of
Lake Oswego and Lake Oswego Corporation seek reconsideration
of minor details set out in our opinion. We grant both
petitions for reconsideration and amend our opinion in two
OF LAKE OSWEGO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
setting out the issues of material fact, we incorrectly
described the city's position with respect to the
question whether the lake is subject to the public trust
doctrine. The city seeks reconsideration of our opinion and