ORS 14.175
Acts, policies or practices of public body capable of repetition and likely to evade judicial review

In any action in which a party alleges that an act, policy or practice of a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (“Public body” defined), or of any officer, employee or agent of a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (“Public body” defined), is unconstitutional or is otherwise contrary to law, the party may continue to prosecute the action and the court may issue a judgment on the validity of the challenged act, policy or practice even though the specific act, policy or practice giving rise to the action no longer has a practical effect on the party if the court determines that:

(1)

The party had standing to commence the action;

(2)

The act challenged by the party is capable of repetition, or the policy or practice challenged by the party continues in effect; and

(3)

The challenged policy or practice, or similar acts, are likely to evade judicial review in the future. [2007 c.770 §1]

Source: Section 14.175 — Acts, policies or practices of public body capable of repetition and likely to evade judicial review, https://www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/bills_laws/ors/ors014.­html.

Notes of Decisions

As provided under this statute, exception to rule against deciding moot cases applies to cases which are otherwise moot and capable of repetition yet evading review. Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or 460, 355 P3d 866 (2015)

Where case may be capable of repetition yet evading review, plaintiff is not required to exhaust every possible avenue of expedition as predicate to invoking statutory exception to rule against deciding otherwise moot cases. Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or 460, 355 P3d 866 (2015)

Challenge to constitutionality of state election law amounts to challenge of action, policy or practice subject to review under this statute. Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or 460, 355 P3d 866 (2015)

Statute leaves to court discretion determination of whether to adjudicate otherwise moot case. Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or 460, 355 P3d 866 (2015)

Provision requiring that act be capable of repetition is satisfied if act of public body that no longer is affecting plaintiff or complaining party is reasonably susceptible to repetition as to someone else. Penn v. Bd. of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 365 Or 607, 451 P3d 589 (2019)

Imposition of condition of post-prison supervision requiring supervised person to obtain permission before entering into intimate relationship is act capable of repetition. Penn v. Bd. of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 365 Or 607, 451 P3d 589 (2019)

Imposition of special condition of post-prison supervision is likely to evade review, as provided by statute, if ordinary rule directing dismissal of moot cases applies. Penn v. Bd. of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 365 Or 607, 451 P3d 589 (2019)

Prudential justifications court considers when determining whether to exercise its discretion to adjudicate otherwise moot case may include, but need not be limited to, adversarial nature of parties’ interests, effect of decision on parties and others, judicial economy and extent of public importance of issues presented. Eastern Oregon Mining Assoc. v. DEQ, 285 Or App 821, 398 P3d 449 (2017), aff’d 365 Or 313, 445 P3d 251 (2019), cert. denied, 141 S Ct 111 (2020)

Green check means up to date. Up to date

Current through early 2024

§ 14.175’s source at oregon​.gov