Yancy v. Shatzer

60 P.3d 1156, 185 Or. App. 704, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 31
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJanuary 8, 2003
Docket0008-08313; A114776
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 60 P.3d 1156 (Yancy v. Shatzer) 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
Yancy v. Shatzer, 60 P.3d 1156, 185 Or. App. 704, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

*705 PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from a circuit court judgment in a writ of review proceeding that upheld the decision of a hearing officer for the City of Portland. The hearing officer had upheld an order excluding petitioner from two Portland city parks pursuant to Portland City Code 20.12.265, and the circuit court rejected petitioner’s arguments that that ordinance is unconstitutional on its face. We conclude that the case was moot before the circuit court rendered its judgment and, therefore, vacate the judgment on remand with instructions to dismiss. See Frederick v. City of Portland, 178 Or App 571, 38 P3d 288 (2002).

The underlying exclusion order was issued on June 9, 2000, and, by its terms, expired 30 days later. Petitioner did not seek to stay the operation of the order pending his administrative appeal, which was decided on June 21, 2000, or thereafter. Consequently, by the time petitioner filed his petition for writ of review on August 18, 2000, the exclusion was no longer effective. Apparently, no party informed the circuit court that the exclusion was no longer operative, and the circuit court rendered a decision on the merits of petitioner’s constitutional challenges to the ordinance.

On appeal, the city argues, for the first time, that this matter is moot because of the expiration of the exclusion. We agree. See Frederick, 178 Or App at 574-75. Petitioner argues that, notwithstanding the expiration of the exclusion period, this dispute is not moot because of other alleged potential consequences from the mere issuance and recordation of the exclusion order. We have considered, and reject, those arguments.

Judgment vacated; remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot.

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

Related

Yancy v. Shatzer
97 P.3d 1161 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 P.3d 1156, 185 Or. App. 704, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yancy-v-shatzer-orctapp-2003.