Oregon Education Ass'n v. Paulus

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Oregon Education Ass'n v. Paulus

714 P.2d 1065, 78 Or. App. 42

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 26, 1986

DocketCA A33909

StatusPublished

This text of 714 P.2d 1065 (Oregon Education Ass'n v. Paulus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oregon Education Ass'n v. Paulus, 714 P.2d 1065, 78 Or. App. 42 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDSON, P. J.

Petitioners seek contested case review under ORS 183.482 of actions of the respondent state officers in connection with an initiative petition. The substantive issues petitioners raise are identical to those we decided in OEA v. Paulus (A35391), 78 Or App 32, 714 P2d 1060 (1986), in which petitioners appealed from the judgment in their circuit court action. The only reason for this second proceeding is petitioners’ concern that the Supreme Court “suggested” in State ex rel Sajo v. Paulus, 297 Or 646, 648-49, 688 P2d 367 (1984), that contested case proceedings, rather than mandamus or other circuit court proceedings, are the proper means for challenging official actions of the kind in question.

We do not read the language in Sajo that concerns petitioners as deciding or suggesting that the circuit court or we lack jurisdiction over all of petitioners’ claims for relief in the circuit court action, and any one of those claims is independently sufficient to raise what we have concluded are the dispositive issues in that action. See OEA v. Paulus (A35391), supra, 78 Or App at 34, n 2. We also do not read the Sajo language as deciding that review under ORS 183.482 is even available. Without deciding that question, we hold that our decision of the appeal from the circuit court judgment renders this proceeding moot.

Petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RICHARDSON, P. J.

Petitioners seek contested case review under ORS 183.482 of actions of the respondent state officers in connection with an initiative petition. The substantive issues petitioners raise are identical to those we decided in OEA v. Paulus (A35391), 78 Or App 32, 714 P2d 1060 (1986), in which petitioners appealed from the judgment in their circuit court action. The only reason for this second proceeding is petitioners’ concern that the Supreme Court “suggested” in State ex rel Sajo v. Paulus, 297 Or 646, 648-49, 688 P2d 367 (1984), that contested case proceedings, rather than mandamus or other circuit court proceedings, are the proper means for challenging official actions of the kind in question.

We do not read the language in Sajo that concerns petitioners as deciding or suggesting that the circuit court or we lack jurisdiction over all of petitioners’ claims for relief in the circuit court action, and any one of those claims is independently sufficient to raise what we have concluded are the dispositive issues in that action. See OEA v. Paulus (A35391), supra, 78 Or App at 34, n 2. We also do not read the Sajo language as deciding that review under ORS 183.482 is even available. Without deciding that question, we hold that our decision of the appeal from the circuit court judgment renders this proceeding moot.

Petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

714 P.2d 1065, 78 Or. App. 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oregon-education-assn-v-paulus-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack