From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKnight v. LCDC

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jul 23, 1985
687 P.2d 170 (Or. Ct. App. 1985)

Summary

In McKnight v. LCDC, 69 Or. App. 642, 687 P.2d 170 (1984), rev den 299 Or. 522 (1985), we dismissed a petition challenging the validity of the temporary rule that OAR 660-14-000 et seq replaced on the ground that the adoption of the permanent rule mooted the challenge to its temporary predecessor.

Summary of this case from McKnight v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

Opinion

CA A29573

Argued and submitted June 8, 1984

Petition for judicial review dismissed September 5, 1984 Reconsideration denied October 19, 1984 Petition for review denied July 23, 1985

Judicial Review of Temporary Rule OAR 660-14-000; Application of the Goals to Incorporation of New Cities, Adopted by Land Conservation and Development Commission on July 14, 1983.

Timothy V. Ramis, Portland, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Edward J. Sullivan, Steven L. Pfeiffer and O'Donnell, Sullivan Ramis, Portland.

Jeff Bennett, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, and Michael B. Huston, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.

John R. Miller, Salem, filed a brief amicus curiae for Oregon Farm Bureau Federation.

Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Petition for judicial review dismissed.


Petitioners seek a ruling under ORS 183.400 that respondent's temporary rule OAR 660-14-000 is invalid. That rule became effective on July 20, 1983, and was replaced on December 30, 1983, by OAR 660-14-000 through 660-14-040, which are permanent rules. The rule petitioners attack is no longer in existence, and our decision would "merely resolve an abstract question without practical effect." State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Holland, 290 Or. 765, 767, 625 P.2d 1318 (1981). To the extent that the rule may affect petitioners' rights in other cases, they may renew their attacks in those cases. This case, however, is moot, and we therefore dismiss the petition.

Petition for judicial review dismissed.


Summaries of

McKnight v. LCDC

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jul 23, 1985
687 P.2d 170 (Or. Ct. App. 1985)

In McKnight v. LCDC, 69 Or. App. 642, 687 P.2d 170 (1984), rev den 299 Or. 522 (1985), we dismissed a petition challenging the validity of the temporary rule that OAR 660-14-000 et seq replaced on the ground that the adoption of the permanent rule mooted the challenge to its temporary predecessor.

Summary of this case from McKnight v. Land Conservation & Development Commission
Case details for

McKnight v. LCDC

Case Details

Full title:McKNIGHT et al, Petitioners, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Jul 23, 1985

Citations

687 P.2d 170 (Or. Ct. App. 1985)
687 P.2d 170

Citing Cases

Reid v. Dept. of Consumer and Business Ser

When the claim under ORS 183.400(1) challenges a temporary rule that has lapsed or been replaced, that rule…

McKnight v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

OAR 660-14-000 et seq. In McKnight v. LCDC, 69 Or. App. 642, 687 P.2d 170 (1984), rev den 299 Or. 522 (1985),…