Nelson v. Knight
| Decision Date | 05 November 1969 |
| Citation | 460 P.2d 355,254 Or. 370 |
| Parties | Bruce K. NELSON, Appellant, v. Frank D. KNIGHT, District Attorney of Benton County, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Robert M. Gordon, Corvallis, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Peter S. Herman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Robert Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen., Salem.
The plaintiff was indicted in Benton County for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, Amphetamine. He brought this declaratory judgment proceeding in Benton County seeking a declaration that improper procedures had been followed in designating Amphetamine a dangerous drug and asking that the defendant District Attorney be enjoined from prosecuting him. The court held that the procedures used in determining what drugs were dangerous were proper and denied plaintiff's prayer for relief. Plaintiff appeals.
The defendant does not contest the plaintiff's right to declaratory relief; however, we find it necessary in the interest of efficient judicial administration to hold that the trial court was not empowered to entertain plaintiff's complaint.
The basic issues to be considered in determining whether a complaint for declaratory relief should be entertained when another action is pending were identified in Recall Bennett Com. v. Bennett, 196 Or. 299, 323, 249 P.2d 479, (1952):
'* * * In this connection we quote from Borchard (Borchard, Declaratory Judgments (2d ed.), p. 302) as follows:
* * *'
We applied these principles in Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Bluhm, 227 Or. 415, 362 P.2d 755 (1961). There, Bluhm brought a personal injury action against his employer. The employer's insurance carrier brought declaratory judgment proceedings against Bluhm seeking a declaration that a release executed by Bluhm was valid and a bar to any recovery for his injuries. We held: 'The declaratory decree must be reversed for the reason that it was an abuse of judicial discretion to entertain the suit when the pleadings disclosed that all of the issues contained therein could be litigated in the pending actions in Multnomah County.' 227 Or. at 417--418, 362 P.2d at 757.
If another pending legal proceeding can decide the issues as effectively as a declaratory judgment proceeding, a declaratory judgment suit is not authorized. This is so whether the pending proceeding be criminal or civil. Among the cases from other jurisdictions adopting this position are: Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534 (Fla.1952); Staub v. Mayor etc., of Baxley, 211 Ga. 1, 83 S.E.2d 606 (1954) 1 Updegraff v. Attorney General, 298 Mich. 48, 298 N.W. 400, 135 A.L.R. 931 (1941). 2
Ostrander v. Linn, 237 Iowa 694, 22 N.W.2d 223 (1946), may at first blush appear contrary to the above-cited decisions; however, it is actually illustrative of the basic principle that declaratory proceedings cannot be maintained if another pending proceeding can Effectively decide the issues. In that case the plaintiff was charged with violating a statute requiring the posting of the differential in the prices paid by plaintiff for various grades of cream. The criminal charge was pending before a justice of the peace. Plaintiff's defense was that the act did not apply to him because he sold only in interstate commerce. The court held that plaintiff could bring declaratory judgment proceedings to obtain a decision upon the merit of this defense for the following reason:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Medical Licensing Bd.
...265 Md. 509, 290 A.2d 530; Berigan Bros. v. Growers Cattle Credit Corp. of Omaha (1976), 182 Neb. 656, 156 N.W.2d 794; Nelson v. Knight (1968), 254 Or. 370, 460 P.2d 355; Eisenhauer v. Williams (Tex.Civ.App., 1976), 537 S.W.2d The propriety of declaratory relief must always be judged with r......
-
Cornelius v. City of Ashland
...is an Existing alternative effective remedy, i.e., when a prosecution has already been initiated, as was the case in Nelson v. Knight, 254 Or. 370, 460 P.2d 355 (1969). Since it is impossible for plaintiff to be prosecuted for violating the ordinance in question, he does not have the altern......
-
Brown v. Oregon State Bar
...where the question can be better determined in another proceeding. Brooks v. Dierker, 275 Or. 619, 552 P.2d 533 (1976); Nelson v. Knight, 254 Or. 370, 460 P.2d 355 (1969). The discipline of lawyers is provided for by statute. ORS 9.490-9.580. In the present case, the trial court determined ......
-
Gaffey v. Babb
...is an existing alternative effective remedy, i. e., when a prosecution has already been initiated, as was the case in Nelson v. Knight, 254 Or. 370, 460 P.2d 355 (1969)." (Emphasis in original.) 12 Or.App. at 189, 506 P.2d The precedential value of Cornelius, which is the most current discu......