zone of interest requirement (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

zone of interest requirement in Oregon

5 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State Of Idaho v. Interstate Commerce Commissiongreen
cadc · 1994 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016See, e.g., Idaho v. ICC, 35 F3d 585, 590 (DC Cir 1994) (applying zone of interest requirement in examining standing to bring claims under Endangered Species Act); Mount Graham Red Squirrel v. Espy, 986 F2d 1568, 1581 (9th Cir 1993) (applying zone of interest test to Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act; Dan Caputo Co. v. Russian River County Sanitation Dist, 749 F2d 571, 574 (9th Cir 1984) (applying zone of interest test to citizen suit provision of Clean Water Act).6 Notably, when used in contexts other than the APA, the test often had the effect of constricting, rather than enlarging, the category

11
Wyoming v. Oklahomagreen
scotus · 1992 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See, e.g., Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 US 437 , 112 S Ct 789 , 117 L Ed 2d 1 (1992) (in Commerce Clause challenge brought by the State of Wyoming against Oklahoma’s statute requiring coal burning utilities to use 10 percent Oklahoma coal, Wyoming was found to have standing based on an injury in fact—falling tax revenues from coal sales—without any consideration of whether that tax effect was within the zone of interests protected by the Commerce Clause).

2016See, e.g., Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 US 437 , 112 S Ct 789 , 117 L Ed 2d 1 (1992) (in Commerce Clause challenge brought by the State of Wyoming against Oklahoma’s statute requiring coal burning utilities to use 10 percent Oklahoma coal, Wyoming was found to have standing based on an injury in fact—falling tax revenues from coal sales—without any consideration of whether that tax effect was within the zone of interests protected by the Commerce Clause).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Bennett v. Spear green
scotus · 1997
2 sentences

2016Bennett v. Spear, 520 US 154, 163-64 , 117 S Ct 1154 , 137 L Ed 2d 281 (1997) (declining to apply zone of interest test to limit standing under Endangered Species Act to persons alleging ecological interests, because statute provides for action by “any person”).

2016Bennett v. Spear, 520 US 154, 163-64 , 117 S Ct 1154 , 137 L Ed 2d 281 (1997) (declining to apply zone of interest test to limit standing under Endangered Species Act to persons alleging ecological interests, because statute provides for action by “any person”).

42001–2016
MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland green
or · 2016
2 sentences

2018And, in the absence of any statement about the requirement in our cases, the *138 usual justification for generally applying a zone of interest requirement also is absent: One cannot presume that the legislature has been legislating with such a requirement in mind." MT & M Gaming, Inc. , 360 Or. at 562 , 383 P.3d 800 .

2018And, in the absence of any statement about the requirement in our cases, the *138 usual justification for generally applying a zone of interest requirement also is absent: One cannot presume that the legislature has been legislating with such a requirement in mind." MT & M Gaming, Inc. , 360 Or. at 562 , 383 P.3d 800 .

22016–2018
Morgan v. Sisters School District 6 green
or · 2013
2 sentences

2016The city suggests that a “zone of interest” requirement particular to the declaratory judgment act is implied by the standing requirement, identified in Morgan , that the application or interpretation of the law at issue cause “some injury to or impact upon a legally recognized interest [of the plaintiffs], beyond an abstract interest in the correct application or the validity of [the] law.” 353 Or at 195 .

2016The city suggests that a “zone of interest” require- ment particular to the declaratory judgment act is implied by the standing requirement, identified in Morgan, that the application or interpretation of the law at issue cause “some injury to or impact upon a legally recognized interest [of the plaintiff’s], beyond an abstract interest in the correct appli- cation or the validity of [the] law.” 353 Or at 195 .

22016–2016
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. green
scotus · 2014
2 sentences

2016More recently, however, in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 527 US _ , 134 S Ct 1377 , 188 L Ed 2d 392 (2014), the Supreme Court rejected the characterization of the zone of interest requirement as a prudential doctrine and suggested that it is best understood as an inquiry into statutory intent — “whether a legislatively conferred cause of action encompasses a particular plaintiffs claim.” 527 US at _, 134 S Ct at 1387 .

2016More recently, however, in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 527 US _ , 134 S Ct 1377 , 188 L Ed 2d 392 (2014), the Supreme Court rejected the characterization of the zone of interest requirement as a prudential doctrine and suggested that it is best understood as an inquiry into statutory intent — “whether a legislatively conferred cause of action encompasses a particular plaintiffs claim.” 527 US at _, 134 S Ct at 1387 .

22016–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.480 (3) USC § 5u.s.c.702 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 26 (1975–2025) WA 19 (1996–2026) IL 8 (1986–2019) OR 5 (2001–2018) VT 3 (2019–2024) DC 3 (1993–2015)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check