2017 ORS 34.250¹
Certain mandamus proceedings under Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction

(1) The provisions of this section apply only to the exercise of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in mandamus proceedings that challenge the actions of judges in particular cases in the circuit courts, the Oregon Tax Court or the Court of Appeals. The provisions of this section do not apply to the exercise of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in mandamus proceedings that challenge the administrative action of a judge or court, or that challenge other action of a judge or court that is of an institutional nature. To the extent that any provision of ORS 34.105 (Definitions for ORS 34.105 to 34.240) to 34.240 (Appeal) is inconsistent with the provisions of this section, the provisions of this section govern in mandamus proceedings subject to this section.

(2) The case title of a petition in a mandamus proceeding that is subject to this section must be the same as the case title of the proceeding in the lower court, except that the relator must be designated as “relator” in addition to the relator’s designation in the lower court, and any party who is adverse to the relator must be designated as “adverse party” in addition to that party’s designation in the lower court. The petition must not name as a party to the mandamus proceeding the lower court or the judge whose action is challenged.

(3) The relator must serve a copy of the petition on all parties who have appeared in the lower court case and on the judge or court whose action is being challenged.

(4) The judge or court whose action is challenged in the mandamus proceeding may seek to intervene in the mandamus proceeding if the judge or court wishes to assert an interest separate from the parties. If the Supreme Court allows the judge or court to intervene, the judge or court shall be designated as “intervenor” in the mandamus proceeding.

(5) If the Supreme Court elects to issue an alternative writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court shall issue an order allowing the petition. The order may be issued in combination with the alternative writ of mandamus. The State Court Administrator shall mail copies of the Supreme Court’s order and alternative writ of mandamus to the relator, to the adverse party, to any intervenor, and to the judge or court whose action is challenged in the petition. Proof of service of an alternative writ need not be filed with the Supreme Court, and the judge or court to which the writ is issued need not file a return unless the alternative writ specifically requires a return.

(6) At any time after the filing of the petition for writ of mandamus or issuance of the alternative writ of mandamus, if the judge or court whose action is being challenged performs the act sought in the petition or required by the alternative writ, the relator shall notify the Supreme Court that the judge or court has complied. The judge, the court, or any other party to the lower court case may also give notice to the Supreme Court of the compliance. On motion of any party or on its own motion, the Supreme Court may dismiss a mandamus proceeding after receiving the notice provided for in this subsection.

(7) If the judge or court to whom the alternative writ of mandamus is directed does not perform the act required by the writ, the mandamus proceeding will proceed to briefing and oral argument as provided in the rules of the Supreme Court or as directed by the Supreme Court. An answer or other responsive pleading need not be filed by any party to the proceeding unless the alternative writ specifically requires the filing of an answer or other responsive pleading.

(8) If the Supreme Court has determined that the relator is entitled to a peremptory writ of mandamus, the court shall direct the State Court Administrator to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus. The peremptory writ of mandamus may be combined with the appellate judgment. If a combined peremptory writ of mandamus and an appellate judgment issue, the relator need not file proof of service of the writ with the court, and the judge or court to which the writ is issued need not file a return showing compliance with the writ.

(9) The State Court Administrator shall issue an appellate judgment showing the Supreme Court’s disposition of the matter, as provided in the rules of the Supreme Court, if:

(a) The court has issued an alternative or peremptory writ of mandamus, the mandamus proceeding is concluded and all issues in the proceeding have been decided; or

(b) The court has not issued a writ of mandamus, but the court has awarded costs and disbursements or attorney fees in the proceeding. [1997 c.388 §2]

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 34—Writs, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors034.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 OregonLaws.org contains the con­tents of Volume 21 of the ORS, inserted along­side the per­tin­ent statutes. See the preface to the ORS An­no­ta­tions for more information.
 
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.