justiciability requirement in Oregon

2023Beck, 202 Or App at 366-68 .

2019As used here, "ripeness" refers to " 'an aspect of the doctrine of justiciability, specifically, the requirement that there be an actual, as opposed to a hypothetical, injury to the individual invoking the judicial power.' " Beck v. City of Portland , 202 Or.

2005First, in US West Communications , the Supreme Court raised the statutory ripeness issue on its own, feeling obliged to do so. 336 Or at 190 (citing Oregon Medical Association v. Rawls, 281 Or 293, 296 , 574 P2d 1103 (1978), for the proposition that courts have an independent obligation to determine whether an issue is justiciable).

1986The counties argue that the justiciability requirement should be relaxed because the case presents an issue of public importance concerning “the State’s and County’s rights and duties in managing forest lands.” We have “rejected] the view that public importance can make a nonjusticiable case justiciable.” Oregon Medical Association v. Rawls, supra, 281 Or at 302 .

2015In the process, the court concluded that “Perry and the cases that relied on Perry were wrongly decided.” 337 Or at 363 .

2015In the process, the court concluded that “Perry and the cases that relied on Perry were wrongly decided.” 337 Or at 363 .

2015State v. Christian, 354 Or 22, 40 , 307 P3d 429 (2013). 6 In light of that case law, we reject plaintiffs contention that the fact that he asserts an overbreadth claim excuses him from establishing the justiciability of that claim. 3.

2015State v. Christian, 354 Or 22, 40 , 307 P3d 429 (2013). 6 In light of that case law, we reject plaintiffs contention that the fact that he asserts an overbreadth claim excuses him from establishing the justiciability of that claim. 3.

2005In Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 186 Or.App. 291, 297 , 63 P.3d 598 , rev. den., 335 Or. 578 , 74 P.3d 112 , cert. den., 540 U.S. 1075 , 124 S.Ct. 940 , 157 L.Ed.2d 746 (2003), the state asserted for the first time on appeal that the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim was not `ripe' because the plaintiff had failed to establish that Article I, section 18, of the state constitution did not afford it a remedy.

2005In Boise Cascade *367 Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 186 Or App 291, 297 , 63 P3d 598 , rev den, 335 Or 578 , cert den, 532 US 923 , 124 S Ct 940 , 157 L Ed 2d 746 (2003), the state asserted for the first time on appeal that the plaintiffs Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim was not ‘ripe’ because the plaintiff had failed to establish that Article I, section 18, of the state constitution did not afford it a remedy.

2005In Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 186 Or.App. 291, 297 , 63 P.3d 598 , rev. den., 335 Or. 578 , 74 P.3d 112 , cert. den., 540 U.S. 1075 , 124 S.Ct. 940 , 157 L.Ed.2d 746 (2003), the state asserted for the first time on appeal that the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim was not `ripe' because the plaintiff had failed to establish that Article I, section 18, of the state constitution did not afford it a remedy.

2005In Boise Cascade *367 Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 186 Or App 291, 297 , 63 P3d 598 , rev den, 335 Or 578 , cert den, 532 US 923 , 124 S Ct 940 , 157 L Ed 2d 746 (2003), the state asserted for the first time on appeal that the plaintiffs Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim was not ‘ripe’ because the plaintiff had failed to establish that Article I, section 18, of the state constitution did not afford it a remedy.

2005First, in US West Communications , the Supreme Court raised the statutory ripeness issue on its own, feeling obliged to do so. 336 Or. at 190 , 81 P.3d 702 (citing Oregon Medical Association v. Rawls, 281 Or. 293, 296 , 574 P.2d 1103 (1978), for the proposition that courts have an independent obligation to determine whether an issue is justiciable).

2005First, in US West Communications , the Supreme Court raised the statutory ripeness issue on its own, feeling obliged to do so. 336 Or at 190 (citing Oregon Medical Association v. Rawls, 281 Or 293, 296 , 574 P2d 1103 (1978), for the proposition that courts have an independent obligation to determine whether an issue is justiciable).

2005In Boise Cascade *367 Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 186 Or App 291, 297 , 63 P3d 598 , rev den, 335 Or 578 , cert den, 532 US 923 , 124 S Ct 940 , 157 L Ed 2d 746 (2003), the state asserted for the first time on appeal that the plaintiffs Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim was not ‘ripe’ because the plaintiff had failed to establish that Article I, section 18, of the state constitution did not afford it a remedy.

2005In Boise Cascade *367 Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 186 Or App 291, 297 , 63 P3d 598 , rev den, 335 Or 578 , cert den, 532 US 923 , 124 S Ct 940 , 157 L Ed 2d 746 (2003), the state asserted for the first time on appeal that the plaintiffs Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim was not ‘ripe’ because the plaintiff had failed to establish that Article I, section 18, of the state constitution did not afford it a remedy.

2005That is made clear in Poddar v. Clatsop County, 167 Or App 162 , 2 P3d 929 , rev den, 331 Or 193 (2000).

2005That is made clear in Poddar v. Clatsop County, 167 Or App 162 , 2 P3d 929 , rev den, 331 Or 193 (2000).

2001Gortmaker, 252 Or. at 443 , 450 P.2d 547 .

2001Gortmaker, 252 Or. at 443 , 450 P.2d 547 .

2001The legislature cannot create a dispute where there is none, see, e.g., Rawls, and it cannot require a court to act in a case where there is no effective relief that the court can grant, see, e.g., McIntire, but it can create rights and interests, and its very act in doing that affects the ability of the beneficiaries to obtain judicial relief to vindicate their interests. [11] See, e.g., Putnam v. Norblad, 134 Or. 433, 436-37 , 293 P. 940 (1930); State ex rel.

2001The legislature cannot create a dispute where there is none, see, e.g., Rawls, and it cannot require a court to act in a case where there is no effective relief that the court can grant, see, e.g., McIntire, but it can create rights and interests, and its very act in doing that affects the ability of the beneficiaries to obtain judicial relief to vindicate their interests. [11] See, e.g., Putnam v. Norblad, 134 Or. 433, 436-37 , 293 P. 940 (1930); State ex rel.

2023Cite as 324 Or App 221 (2023) 231 Additionally, the Attorney General and the Residents argue that, should we determine that this case is justiciable, we should reach the merits of the Board’s petition and con- clude that the Ordinance is preempted.8 Intervenors argue that we should not reach the merits, but that if we do, we should conclude that the Ordinance is lawful.

2019App. 360 , 366, 122 P.3d 131 (2005) (quoting Coast Range Conifers v. Board of Forestry , 192 Or.

2006ANALYSIS Under the doctrine of justiciability, the court “cannot issue declaratory judgments in a vacuum [but] must resolve an actual or justiciable controversy,” that is, a controversy involving “a dispute based on present facts rather than on contingent or hypothetical events.” TVKO v. Howland, 335 Or 527, 534 , 73 P3d 905 (2003); see also Wynne v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 306, 309-10 (2005).

2006ANALYSIS Under the doctrine of justiciability, the court “cannot issue declaratory judgments in a vacuum [but] must resolve an actual or justiciable controversy,” that is, a controversy involving “a dispute based on present facts rather than on contingent or hypothetical events.” TVKO v. Howland, 335 Or 527, 534 , 73 P3d 905 (2003); see also Wynne v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 306, 309-10 (2005).

2006The difference between present facts and hypothetical future events has been described as that between a decision that will have “practical effects” on a party’s rights and one in which a party has only “an abstract interest in the correct application of the law.” Orr v. East Valley Water District, 203 Or App 430, 437 , 125 P3d 834 (2005).

2006The difference between present facts and hypothetical future events has been described as that between a decision that will have “practical effects” on a party’s rights and one in which a party has only “an abstract interest in the correct application of the law.” Orr v. East Valley Water District, 203 Or App 430, 437 , 125 P3d 834 (2005).

2005In Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 186 Or.App. 291, 297 , 63 P.3d 598 , rev. den., 335 Or. 578 , 74 P.3d 112 , cert. den., 540 U.S. 1075 , 124 S.Ct. 940 , 157 L.Ed.2d 746 (2003), the state asserted for the first time on appeal that the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim was not `ripe' because the plaintiff had failed to establish that Article I, section 18, of the state constitution did not afford it a remedy.

2005In Boise Cascade *367 Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 186 Or App 291, 297 , 63 P3d 598 , rev den, 335 Or 578 , cert den, 532 US 923 , 124 S Ct 940 , 157 L Ed 2d 746 (2003), the state asserted for the first time on appeal that the plaintiffs Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim was not ‘ripe’ because the plaintiff had failed to establish that Article I, section 18, of the state constitution did not afford it a remedy.

2004For purposes of the discussion in this opinion, we take our description of the arguments from the trust. 3 In Utsey , we concluded that the party that invokes the jurisdiction of the court has the “obligation to establish the justiciability of its claim,” 176 Or App at *141 549; in order to establish the justiciability of its claim, the party “must demonstrate that a decision in this case will have a practical effect on its rights,” id. at 550 ; and that “[t]he case law concerning the ‘practical effects’ requirement clearly states that an abstract interest in the proper application of the law

2004For purposes of the discussion in this opinion, we take our description of the arguments from the trust. 3 In Utsey , we concluded that the party that invokes the jurisdiction of the court has the “obligation to establish the justiciability of its claim,” 176 Or App at *141 549; in order to establish the justiciability of its claim, the party “must demonstrate that a decision in this case will have a practical effect on its rights,” id. at 550 ; and that “[t]he case law concerning the ‘practical effects’ requirement clearly states that an abstract interest in the proper application of the law

2002In Merrick v. Board of Higher *290 Education, 103 Or App 328, 334 , 797 P2d 388 (1990), we held that a petition under ORS 183.400(1) concerning the validity of an agency rule was not “abstract” and, thus, was justiciable, because the petitioner was a state employee responsible for enforcing the rule and, at the same time, was bound by an apparently conflicting enactment that affected her employment and associations.

2002In Merrick v. Board of Higher *290 Education, 103 Or App 328, 334 , 797 P2d 388 (1990), we held that a petition under ORS 183.400(1) concerning the validity of an agency rule was not “abstract” and, thus, was justiciable, because the petitioner was a state employee responsible for enforcing the rule and, at the same time, was bound by an apparently conflicting enactment that affected her employment and associations.

1997Cf. Van Sickle v. Shanahan, 212 Kan. 426 , 511 P.2d 223 (1973) (examining a Kansas constitutional amendment under the Guarantee Clause) with State v. Mountain Timber Co., 75 Wash. 581, 590 , 135 P. 645 (1913), aff'd 243 U.S. 219 , 37 S.Ct. 260 , 61 L.Ed. 685 (1917), and Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 168 La. 1030, 1032-33 , 123 So. 664 (1928), aff'd 281 U.S. 370 , 50 S.Ct. 335 , 74 L.Ed. 913 (1930) (each case holding that the Guarantee Clause dispute was not justiciable; result affirmed by United States Supreme Court).

1997Cf. Van Sickle v. Shanahan, 212 Kan. 426 , 511 P.2d 223 (1973) (examining a Kansas constitutional amendment under the Guarantee Clause) with State v. Mountain Timber Co., 75 Wash. 581, 590 , 135 P. 645 (1913), aff'd 243 U.S. 219 , 37 S.Ct. 260 , 61 L.Ed. 685 (1917), and Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 168 La. 1030, 1032-33 , 123 So. 664 (1928), aff'd 281 U.S. 370 , 50 S.Ct. 335 , 74 L.Ed. 913 (1930) (each case holding that the Guarantee Clause dispute was not justiciable; result affirmed by United States Supreme Court).

1997Cf. Van Sickle v. Shanahan, 212 Kan. 426 , 511 P.2d 223 (1973) (examining a Kansas constitutional amendment under the Guarantee Clause) with State v. Mountain Timber Co., 75 Wash. 581, 590 , 135 P. 645 (1913), aff'd 243 U.S. 219 , 37 S.Ct. 260 , 61 L.Ed. 685 (1917), and Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 168 La. 1030, 1032-33 , 123 So. 664 (1928), aff'd 281 U.S. 370 , 50 S.Ct. 335 , 74 L.Ed. 913 (1930) (each case holding that the Guarantee Clause dispute was not justiciable; result affirmed by United States Supreme Court).

1997Cf. Van Sickle v. Shanahan, 212 Kan. 426 , 511 P.2d 223 (1973) (examining a Kansas constitutional amendment under the Guarantee Clause) with State v. Mountain Timber Co., 75 Wash. 581, 590 , 135 P. 645 (1913), aff'd 243 U.S. 219 , 37 S.Ct. 260 , 61 L.Ed. 685 (1917), and Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 168 La. 1030, 1032-33 , 123 So. 664 (1928), aff'd 281 U.S. 370 , 50 S.Ct. 335 , 74 L.Ed. 913 (1930) (each case holding that the Guarantee Clause dispute was not justiciable; result affirmed by United States Supreme Court).

1997Cf. Van Sickle v. Shanahan, 212 Kan. 426 , 511 P.2d 223 (1973) (examining a Kansas constitutional amendment under the Guarantee Clause) with State v. Mountain Timber Co., 75 Wash. 581, 590 , 135 P. 645 (1913), aff'd 243 U.S. 219 , 37 S.Ct. 260 , 61 L.Ed. 685 (1917), and Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 168 La. 1030, 1032-33 , 123 So. 664 (1928), aff'd 281 U.S. 370 , 50 S.Ct. 335 , 74 L.Ed. 913 (1930) (each case holding that the Guarantee Clause dispute was not justiciable; result affirmed by United States Supreme Court).

1997Cf. Van Sickle v. Shanahan, 212 Kan. 426 , 511 P.2d 223 (1973) (examining a Kansas constitutional amendment under the Guarantee Clause) with State v. Mountain Timber Co., 75 Wash. 581, 590 , 135 P. 645 (1913), aff'd 243 U.S. 219 , 37 S.Ct. 260 , 61 L.Ed. 685 (1917), and Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 168 La. 1030, 1032-33 , 123 So. 664 (1928), aff'd 281 U.S. 370 , 50 S.Ct. 335 , 74 L.Ed. 913 (1930) (each case holding that the Guarantee Clause dispute was not justiciable; result affirmed by United States Supreme Court).

1997Cf. Van Sickle v. Shanahan, 212 Kan. 426 , 511 P.2d 223 (1973) (examining a Kansas constitutional amendment under the Guarantee Clause) with State v. Mountain Timber Co., 75 Wash. 581, 590 , 135 P. 645 (1913), aff'd 243 U.S. 219 , 37 S.Ct. 260 , 61 L.Ed. 685 (1917), and Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 168 La. 1030, 1032-33 , 123 So. 664 (1928), aff'd 281 U.S. 370 , 50 S.Ct. 335 , 74 L.Ed. 913 (1930) (each case holding that the Guarantee Clause dispute was not justiciable; result affirmed by United States Supreme Court).

1997Cf. Van Sickle v. Shanahan, 212 Kan. 426 , 511 P.2d 223 (1973) (examining a Kansas constitutional amendment under the Guarantee Clause) with State v. Mountain Timber Co., 75 Wash. 581, 590 , 135 P. 645 (1913), aff'd 243 U.S. 219 , 37 S.Ct. 260 , 61 L.Ed. 685 (1917), and Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 168 La. 1030, 1032-33 , 123 So. 664 (1928), aff'd 281 U.S. 370 , 50 S.Ct. 335 , 74 L.Ed. 913 (1930) (each case holding that the Guarantee Clause dispute was not justiciable; result affirmed by United States Supreme Court).

1997Cf. Van Sickle v. Shanahan, 212 Kan. 426 , 511 P.2d 223 (1973) (examining a Kansas constitutional amendment under the Guarantee Clause) with State v. Mountain Timber Co., 75 Wash. 581, 590 , 135 P. 645 (1913), aff'd 243 U.S. 219 , 37 S.Ct. 260 , 61 L.Ed. 685 (1917), and Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 168 La. 1030, 1032-33 , 123 So. 664 (1928), aff'd 281 U.S. 370 , 50 S.Ct. 335 , 74 L.Ed. 913 (1930) (each case holding that the Guarantee Clause dispute was not justiciable; result affirmed by United States Supreme Court).

1997Cf. Van Sickle v. Shanahan, 212 Kan. 426 , 511 P.2d 223 (1973) (examining a Kansas constitutional amendment under the Guarantee Clause) with State v. Mountain Timber Co., 75 Wash. 581, 590 , 135 P. 645 (1913), aff'd 243 U.S. 219 , 37 S.Ct. 260 , 61 L.Ed. 685 (1917), and Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 168 La. 1030, 1032-33 , 123 So. 664 (1928), aff'd 281 U.S. 370 , 50 S.Ct. 335 , 74 L.Ed. 913 (1930) (each case holding that the Guarantee Clause dispute was not justiciable; result affirmed by United States Supreme Court).