1000 Friends of Oregon v. Deva

• Jurisdiction: Oregon
• Citation: 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Deva, 669 P.2d 1183, 64 Or.App. 755 (Or. App. 1983)
• Docket Number: No. 17487,17487
• Parties: 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON, the assumed name of Oregon Land Use Project, Inc., an Oregon nonprofit corporation, Kelly McGreer, Rosemary McGreer, James G. Perkins, Shirlee Perkins, David Dickson and Melinda Dickson, Appellants-Cross-Respondents, v. Swami Krishna DEVA, City of Rajneeshpuram, Rajneesh Investment Corporation, and Rajneesh Neosannyas International Commune, Respondents-Cross-Appellants, Wasco County Court and Sue Proffitt, Wasco County Clerk, Respondents, Ma Deva Jayamala, Ma Deva Rikta, Swami Deva Sandesh, Ma Prem Archan and Ma Prem Patipada, Defendants. ; CA A26245.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 05 October 1983

Page 1183

669 P.2d 1183

64 Or.App. 755

1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON, the assumed name of Oregon Land Use Project, Inc., an Oregon nonprofit corporation, Kelly McGreer, Rosemary McGreer, James G. Perkins, Shirlee Perkins, David Dickson and Melinda DicksonAppellants-Cross-Respondents, v.Swami Krishna DEVA, City of Rajneeshpuram, Rajneesh Investment Corporation, and Rajneesh Neosannyas International CommuneRespondents-Cross-AppellantsWasco County Court and Sue Proffitt, WascoCounty Clerk, RespondentsMa Deva Jayamala, Ma Deva Rikta, Swami Deva Sandesh, Ma Prem Archan and Ma Prem Patipada, Defendants.

No. 17487; CA A26245.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted May 18, 1983.

Decided Oct. 5, 1983.

Mark J. Greenfield, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants-cross-respondents.

Joseph Larkin, Deputy Dist. Atty., The Dalles, waived appearance for respondentsWasco County Court and Sue Proffitt, Wasco County Clerk, The Dallas.

Ma Prem Sangeet, Rajneeshpuram, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent-cross-appellantCity of Rajneeshpuram.

Timothy Ramis, Portland, argued the cause for respondents-cross-appellants Swami Krishna Deva, Rajneesh Investment Corporation, and Rajneesh Neosannyas International Commune.On the briefs was Corinne C. Sherton, Portland.

Before BUTTLER, P.J., and WARREN and ROSSMAN, JJ.

BUTTLER, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from an adverse declaratory decree entered after the trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.In their brief, plaintiffs summarize their complaint as follows:

"Plaintiffs' complaint sought declarations (1) that an election of City Councilmen for Rajneeshpuram based on an unlawful order for incorporation would be illegal and its results null and void; (2) that plaintiffs were entitled to permanent injunctions against the election of such city councilmen; (3) that plaintiffs were entitled to permanent injunctions against land use decisionmaking by the city; (4) that any land use decisions by an illegally created city would themselves be illegal; and (5) that if the city's incorporation were ruled invalid, all uses approved or established that are inconsistent with exclusive farm use zoning must be removed."

Plaintiffs also prayed for preliminary injunctions against the election of city councilmen or the exercise of planning and zoning responsibilities by elected city councilmen and city agents and employes.

Underlying all of the allegations of plaintiffs' complaint is the hypothetical assumption that the incorporation of Rajneeshpuram ultimately will be declared illegal in another case that is currently pending before LUBA.¹There is no showing that defendants had done, or intended to do, anything unlawful.Plaintiffs are thus seeking declaratory and injunctive relief which would only become effective if they prevail in other pending litigation.Plaintiffs do not seek relief pending the outcome of the other litigation, although the thrust of this action appears to be protective in nature.

As it stands, the complaint seeks hypothetical relief and does not...