Corey v. Dlcd
| Jurisdiction | Oregon |
| Citation | Corey v. Dlcd, 190 P.3d 493, 221 Or. App. 505 (Or. App. 2008) |
| Docket Number | Agency No. M119478.,Agency No. A129905. |
| Parties | Virginia COREY; Bergis Road, LLC; and Bernita Johnston, Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 06 August 2008 |
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Denise G. Fjordbeck, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for motion.
Before WOLLHEIM, Presiding Judge, and SCHUMAN, Judge, and ROSENBLUM, Judge.
The Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD) issued an order waiving enforcement of certain land use regulations as to petitioners' property.FormerORS 197.352(1)(Ballot Measure 37 (2004)), amended byOr. Laws 2007, ch. 424, § 4(Ballot Measure 49 (2007)), renumbered asORS 195.305.Petitioners sought judicial review of DLCD's order in this court.Petitioners also sought judicial review of the order in the circuit court.DLCD filed a motion in this court for summary determination of which court had jurisdiction to review the order.We determined that this court had jurisdiction of the matter.Corey v. DLCD,210 Or.App. 542, 152 P.3d 933, adh'd to on recons.,212 Or.App. 536, 159 P.3d 327(2007).DLCD then petitioned for review of the jurisdictional issue.The Supreme Court allowed review.Corey v. DLCD,343 Or. 363, 169 P.3d 1268(2007).
On review, the Supreme Court determined that the passage of Ballot Measure 49 had rendered the controversy moot.The court dismissed the petition for review but denied DLCD's motion to vacatethis court's decision regarding jurisdiction.Corey v. DLCD,344 Or. 457, 184 P.3d 1109(2008).
It remains for this court to dispose of the judicial review itself.In light of the Supreme Court's determination regarding mootness, we dismiss the judicial review as moot.
Judicial review dismissed as moot.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Hauskins
...justiciable controversy exists.” In order for a matter to present a justiciable controversy, a decision in the matter has to “have some practical effect on the rights of the parties to the controversy.” Id.; see also
Corey v. DLCD, 344 Or. 457, 464, 184 P.3d 1109 (2008)(“If it becomes clear in the course of a judicial proceeding that resolving the merits of a claim will have no practical effect on the rights of the parties, this court will dismiss the claim as moot.” (Citing Yancy... -
Thomas v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev.
...November 6, 2007, the voters approved Measure 49 and, on December 6, 2007, the measure became effective. “Among other things, Measure 49 retroactively extinguished previously issued Measure 37 waivers of land use regulations. See
Corey v. DLCD, 344 Or. 457, 466–67, 184 P.3d 1109 (2008)(‘Measure 49 by its terms deprives Measure 37 waivers—and all orders disposing of Measure 37 claims—of any continuing viability’; emphasis in original). As a result, landowners who had begun developing their... -
State v. Langford
...argues that, because defendant has served 12 days of community service, the case is moot. A case is moot if "resolving the merits of a claim will have no practical effect on the rights of the parties."
Corey v. DLCD, 344 Or 457, 464, 184 P3d 1109 (2008). We have held, however, that, when a defendant challenges a punitive sanction for contempt, "the sanction having been served does not render the appeal moot." State v. Hauskins, 251 Or App 34, 38-39, 281 P3d 669 (2012). This... -
Burke v. State
...acquired the land or to waive the applicable land use restrictions. See Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 351 Or. 219, 223–25, 264 P.3d 1265 (2011) (describing enactment of Measures 37 and 49);
Corey v. DLCD, 344 Or. 457, 460, 184 P.3d 1109 (2008)(same). In 2005, Burke executed a land sale contract under the terms of which he agreed to transfer his property to Griffin. As part of the contract, Burke retained legal title to the property and promised to assist Griffin...