Cyrus v. Board of County Commissioners
Decision Date | 18 February 2009 |
Docket Number | A133381.,05CV0511MA.,05CV0560ST. |
Citation | 226 Or. App. 1,202 P.3d 274 |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Parties | O. Keith CYRUS and Conida E. Cyrus, husband and wife, Petitioners-Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, Respondent-Respondent, and Central Electric Cooperative, Inc., an active Oregon cooperative, Intervenor-Respondent. The Trail Crossing Trust, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Board Of County Commissioners Of Deschutes County, Respondent-Respondent, and Central Electric Cooperative, Inc., an active Oregon cooperative, Intervenor-Respondent. |
Michael T. Garone, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the joint opening brief were Donald Joe Willis, Bend, Sara Kobak, Portland, and Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, and Michael W. Peterkin, Bend, Brian C. Hickman, and Peterkin & Associates. With him on the joint reply brief were Donald Joe Willis and Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, and Michael W. Peterkin, Brian C. Hickman, and Peterkin & Associates.
Martin E. Hansen, Bend, argued the cause for intervenor-respondent. On the brief were Gerald A. Martin, Michael H. McGean, Bend, and Francis Hansen & Martin LLP.
No appearance for respondent.
Before WOLLHEIM, Presiding Judge, and BREWER, Chief Judge, and SERCOMBE, Judge.
This case arises out of consolidated writ of review proceedings involving O. Keith Cyrus and Conida E. Cyrus and The Trail Crossing Trust (petitioners), and Central Electric Cooperative (CEC). Petitioners initiated the writ of review proceedings to challenge an order issued by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners that approved a claim filed by CEC under Ballot Measure 37, codified as ORS 197.352 (2005). CEC sought just compensation under Measure 37 or a waiver of certain land use regulations that Deschutes County applied to CEC's utility easements. The board of commissioners waived the land use regulations, and the circuit court affirmed the majority of the board's order.1
Petitioners then appealed the circuit court judgment, contending that CEC was not entitled to relief under Measure 37 for a number of reasons, including that CEC did not acquire the easements at issue until 2001 and that the electric cooperative was a public entity not entitled to relief under Measure 37. While petitioners' appeal was pending in this court, the voters passed Ballot Measure 49, which amended Measure 37 and added provisions that altered the claims and remedies available to landowners whose property values were adversely affected by land use regulations. Or. Laws 2007, ch. 424, § 4, renumbered as ORS 195.305.
According to petitioners, it is undisputed that CEC has already constructed a power line on the easements at issue; for that reason, a determination of the validity of the Measure 37 waiver will have a practical effect on their rights, because CEC can only have a common-law vested right if its development was done with a valid waiver. For the reasons that follow, we agree with CEC's contention that the case is moot.
This court has an independent obligation to determine whether a case is "justiciable," Oregon Medical Association v Rawls, 281 Or. 293, 296, 574 P.2d 1103 (1978), and mootness is part of that inquiry. First Commerce of America v. Nimbus Center Assoc., 329 Or. 199, 206, 986 P.2d 556 (1999) ( ). "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." Corey, 344 Or. at 465, 184 P.3d 1109 (citing Yancy v. Shatzer, 337 Or. 345, 349, 97 P.3d 1161 (2004)). For example, a case no longer has a practical effect on or concerning the rights of the parties when "an event occurs that `render[s] it impossible for the court to grant effectual relief.'" Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or. 180, 184, 998 P.2d 661 (2000) (quoting Greyhound Park v. Ore. Racing Com., 215 Or. 76, 79, 332 P.2d 634 (1958)); see also Kerr v. Bradbury, 340 Or. 241, 244, 131 P.3d 737 (2006) ( ).
Here, the parties agree—as do we— that the beginning point for analyzing the question of mootness with respect to a Measure 37 claim is the Supreme Court's decision in Corey. The issue on review in Corey was whether the Court of Appeals or the circuit court had jurisdiction to review a final order of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) respecting the plaintiffs' Measure 37 claim. As a threshold matter, however, the Supreme Court considered "whether resolution of the jurisdictional question that DLCD brought to us can have any practical effect on the rights of the parties." 344 Or. at 464, 184 P.3d 1109.
To answer the predicate question of justiciability, the court first examined the scope and effect of Measure 49:
Id. at 465, 184 P.3d 1109 (emphasis added; original emphasis omitted).
Despite the legislature's intent to displace Measure 37 remedies, the plaintiffs in Corey contended that, under subsection 5(3) of Measure 49, they were entitled to "just compensation." In their view, "once DLCD concluded that post-acquisition land use regulations had reduced the fair market value of their property and granted relief in the form of a waiver, they had a constitutionally protected `property right' in that waiver * * *— i.e., a vested right." Id. at 466, 184 P.3d 1109. The plaintiffs further argued that "the waiver that DLCD granted under Measure 37 is the equivalent of rights obtained under a judgment granting a monetary award, and is vested in the sense that it cannot be diminished by legislative action." Id.
The Supreme Court expressed doubt as to the Corey plaintiffs' "vested rights" argument on a number of scores:
Id. (emphasis in original).
The court then clarified the scope of its holding:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
An Or. Non-profit Corp.. v. Bd. Of Comm'rs Of Yamhill County
...application of the “goal-post” statute, ORS 215.427(3)(a), to development allowed by Measure 37 waiver); Cyrus v. Board of County Commissioners, 226 Or.App. 1, 202 P.3d 274 (2009) (appeal on the validity of a Measure 37 waiver dismissed as moot in light of the enactment of Measure 49 notwit......
-
Ass'n of Or. Corr. Emps. v. State, Dep't of Corr.
...on the question that has evaded review in this case. 341 Or. at 204, 140 P.3d 1131 ; see also Cyrus v. Board of County Commissioners, 226 Or.App. 1, 12–13, 12 n. 7, 202 P.3d 274 (2009) (concluding, based in part on Kerr and despite Snyder, that the petitioners' desire to obtain answers abou......
-
Pete's Mt. Homeowners v. Clackamas Cty.
...exception for so-called vested rights. Id. at 466-67, 184 P.3d 1109 (emphasis in original). See also Cyrus v. Board of County Commissioners, 226 Or. App. 1, 13, 202 P.3d 274 (2009) (holding that, under Corey, the enactment of Measure 49 renders pending challenges to Measure 37 waivers In th......
-
Campbell v. Clackamas Cnty.
...was being challenged in the appeal of the subdivision preliminary approval to LUBA. See Cyrus v. Board of County Commissioners, 226 Or.App. 1, 18–20, 202 P.3d 274 (2009) (Sercombe, J., concurring) (construction of project during time of an appeal of the project permit approval is not undert......