State ex rel. Oregon Television, Inc. v. Prophet

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State ex rel. Oregon Television, Inc. v. Prophet

776 P.2d 592, 97 Or. App. 525

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 12, 1989

DocketA8710-06284; CA A47327

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 776 P.2d 592 (State ex rel. Oregon Television, Inc. v. Prophet) 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

State ex rel. Oregon Television, Inc. v. Prophet, 776 P.2d 592, 97 Or. App. 525 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff obtained an alternative writ of mandamus compelling defendants either to produce certain public documents that the district attorney had ordered them to disclose under the Public Records Law, ORS 192.410 et seq, or to show cause why they did not produce the documents. After a hearing, defendants produced the documents. The trial court thereafter denied plaintiffs petition for costs, disbursements and attorney fees and entered a judgment of dismissal. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff is not entitled to its costs, disbursements or attorney fees under ORS 192.490(3), because this action was not brought under the Public Records Law. Mandamus is not a “proceeding * * * for injunctive or declaratory relief’ under that statute. ORS 192.450(2) provides:

“[I]f the [public body] continues to withhold the record or a part of it notwithstanding an order to disclose by the [district attorney], the person seeking disclosure may institute [proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief].”

See also ORS 192.460.

The mandamus statute, ORS 34.110 et seq, makes no provision for an award of attorney fees. Moreover, plaintiff was not entitled to costs or disbursements under ORCP 68B, because it did not prevail.

Affirmed.

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