74th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2007 Regular Session
 
NOTE:  Matter within  { +  braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within  { -  braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
 { +  braces and plus signs + } .
 
LC 1032
 
                           A-Engrossed
 
                         House Bill 2324
                  Ordered by the House April 30
            Including House Amendments dated April 30
 
Ordered printed by the Speaker pursuant to House Rule 12.00A (5).
  Presession filed (at the request of House Interim Committee on
  Judiciary)
 
 
                             SUMMARY
 
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure.
 
    { - Requires that two Multnomah County judges hold court in
City of Gresham. - }
   { +  Allows court to render judgment on action challenging
constitutionality or legality of policy, practice or act of
public body even though policy, practice or act no longer has
effect on party bringing action if court determines challenged
act is capable of repetition and likely to evade judicial review
in future. + }
 
                        A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to courts.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
  SECTION 1.  { + In any action in which a party alleges that an
act, policy or practice of a public body, as defined in ORS
174.109, or of any officer, employee or agent of a public body,
as defined in ORS 174.109, is unconstitutional or is otherwise
contrary to law, the party continues to have standing in the
action and the court may issue a judgment on the validity of the
challenged act, policy or practice even though the specific act,
policy or practice giving rise to the action no longer has a
practical effect on the party if the court determines that:
  (1) The party had standing at the time the action was
commenced;
  (2) The act challenged by the party is capable of repetition,
or the policy or practice challenged by the party continues in
effect; and
  (3) The challenged policy or practice, or similar acts,
policies or practices, are likely to evade judicial review in the
future. + }
                         ----------