ORS 28.200¹
Supreme Court authorized to answer questions of law certified by other courts

The Supreme Court may answer questions of law certified to it by the Supreme Court of the United States, a Court of Appeals of the United States, a United States District Court, a panel of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Service or the highest appellate court or the intermediate appellate court of any other state, when requested by the certifying court if there are involved in any proceedings before it questions of law of this state which may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court and as to which it appears to the certifying court there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court and the intermediate appellate courts of this state. [1983 c.103 §1; 1995 c.197 §1]

Note: 28.200 (Supreme Court authorized to answer questions of law certified by other courts) to 28.255 (Short title) were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 28 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions

Where Oregon law not Washington Deadman’s Statute governed admissibility of testimony in interpleader ac­tion brought by insurance company in district of Oregon, testimony of insured’s widow and insurance agent was admissible to determine beneficiary. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S. v. McKay, 861 F2d 221 (9th Cir. 1988)

Chapter 28

Notes of Decisions

Declaratory judg­ment pro­ceed­ings to determine coverage under insurance policies are legal in nature. Hartford v. Aetna/Mt. Hood Radio, 270 Or 226, 527 P2d 406 (1974)

Declaratory judg­ment pro­ceed­ings will be treated as either legal or equitable, depending upon the essential nature of the case. Intl. Health and Life Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 271 Or 35, 530 P2d 517 (1975)

Where complaint in declaratory judg­ment pro­ceed­ing sufficiently alleged justiciable controversy, it was error to grant mo­tion to dismiss for failure to state claim. Hupp v. Schumacher, 29 Or App 9, 562 P2d 217 (1977); Goose Hollow v. City of Portland, 58 Or App 722, 650 P2d 135 (1982)

Where a case sounds in law, an appellate court is precluded from testing the weight of evidence but rather to see if evidence exists from which the trier of fact could have drawn particular conclusions of fact. Lindsey v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 278 Or 681, 565 P2d 744 (1977)

The insurer was found not obligated to pay a propor­tionate share of the attorney fees of the insured incurred in the settle­ment of the per­sonal injury ac­tion. Lindsey v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 278 Or 681, 565 P2d 744 (1977)

Where students at college administered by Oregon State Board of Higher Educa­tion sought review of course grades through college grievance pro­ce­dures, judicial review was properly under ORS 183.490 (Agency may be compelled to act) and not declaratory judg­ment pro­vi­sions of this chapter. McBeth v. Elliott, 42 Or App 783, 601 P2d 871 (1979)

Declaratory judg­ment pro­ceed­ing filed by insured to determine its rights under an insurance policy insuring against loss or damage to prop­erty in its custody did not present a justiciable controversy. Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines v. Lexington Ins. Co., 287 Or 217, 598 P2d 294 (1979)

Challenging Board of Parole’s refusal to set release date through declaratory judg­ment was not proper as special statutory remedy under ORS 144.335 (Appeal from order of board to Court of Appeals) was available. Sterling v. Blalock, 47 Or App 275, 614 P2d 610 (1980)

City council’s removal of plaintiff as city attorney was quasi-judicial pro­ceed­ing, so proper ap­peal to circuit court was by way of writ of review and not declaratory judg­ment. Jordan v. City Council of Lake Oswego, 49 Or App 31, 618 P2d 1298 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Where appraisal process pursuant to [former] ORS 743.648 had been initiated, declaratory judg­ment ac­tion to construe policy pro­vi­sions could not be commenced until appraisal was completed. Director v. So. Carolina Ins. Co., 49 Or App 179, 619 P2d 649 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Circuit court had authority to determine whether Attorney General had statutory duty, but lacked authority to determine whether exercise of duty would violate attorney disciplinary rules. Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 648 P2d 1289 (1982)

Ac­tion seeking construc­tion of liability policy where there were legitimate ques­tions of coverage or noncoverage arising under policy issued for protec­tion of the insured against claims of third per­sons sustaining injury or damage presented justiciable controversy appropriate for declaratory judg­ment. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Reuter, 294 Or 446, 657 P2d 1231 (1983)

Plaintiff’s challenge to county charter failed to state justiciable claim because plaintiff only named sponsor of initiative as defendant. Hudson v. Feder, 115 Or App 1, 836 P2d 779 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 370 (1974); 15 EL 244 (1985)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 28—Declaratory Judgments; Certification of Questions of Law, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors028.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 28, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano028.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information