Chapter 28
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Declaratory
judgment proceedings to determine coverage under insurance policies are legal
in nature. Hartford v. Aetna/Mt. Hood Radio, 270 Or 226, 527 P2d 406 (1974)
Declaratory
judgment proceedings will be treated as either legal or equitable, depending
upon the essential nature of the case. Intl. Health and Life Ins. Co. v. Lewis,
271 Or 35, 530 P2d 517 (1975)
Where
complaint in declaratory judgment proceeding sufficiently alleged justiciable controversy, it was error to grant motion to
dismiss for failure to state claim. Hupp v.
Schumacher, 29 Or App 9, 562 P2d 217 (1977); Goose Hollow v. City of Portland,
58 Or App 722, 650 P2d 135 (1982)
Where
a case sounds in law, an appellate court is precluded from testing the weight
of evidence but rather to see if evidence exists from which the trier of fact could have drawn particular conclusions of
fact. Lindsey v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 278 Or 681, 565
P2d 744 (1977)
The
insurer was found not obligated to pay a proportionate share of the attorney
fees of the insured incurred in the settlement of the personal injury action.
Lindsey v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 278 Or 681, 565 P2d
744 (1977)
Where
students at college administered by Oregon State Board of Higher Education
sought review of course grades through college grievance procedures, judicial
review was properly under ORS 183.490 and not declaratory judgment provisions
of this chapter. McBeth v. Elliott, 42 Or App 783,
601 P2d 871 (1979)
Declaratory
judgment proceeding filed by insured to determine its rights under an insurance
policy insuring against loss or damage to property in its custody did not
present a justiciable controversy. Mitchell Bros.
Truck Lines v. Lexington Ins. Co., 287 Or 217, 598 P2d 294 (1979)
Challenging
Board of Parole’s refusal to set release date through declaratory judgment was
not proper as special statutory remedy under ORS 144.335 was available.
Sterling v. Blalock, 47 Or App 275, 614 P2d 610 (1980)
City
council’s removal of plaintiff as city attorney was quasi-judicial proceeding,
so proper appeal to circuit court was by way of writ of review and not
declaratory judgment. Jordan v. City Council of Lake Oswego, 49 Or App 31, 618
P2d 1298 (1980), Sup Ct review denied
Where
appraisal process pursuant to [former] ORS 743.648 had been initiated,
declaratory judgment action to construe policy provisions could not be
commenced until appraisal was completed. Director v. So. Carolina Ins. Co., 49
Or App 179, 619 P2d 649 (1980), Sup Ct review denied
Circuit
court had authority to determine whether Attorney General had statutory duty,
but lacked authority to determine whether exercise of duty would violate
attorney disciplinary rules. Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 648 P2d
1289 (1982)
Action
seeking construction of liability policy where there were legitimate questions
of coverage or noncoverage arising under policy
issued for protection of the insured against claims of third persons sustaining
injury or damage presented justiciable controversy appropriate
for declaratory judgment. State Farm Fire & Cas.
Co. v. Reuter, 294 Or 446, 657 P2d 1231 (1983)
Plaintiff’s
challenge to county charter failed to state justiciable
claim because plaintiff only named sponsor of initiative as defendant. Hudson v.
Feder, 115 Or App 1, 836 P2d 779 (1992), Sup Ct review
denied
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 10 WLJ 370 (1974);
15 EL 244 (1985)
28.010 to 28.160
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 40 WLR 563 (2004)
28.010
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Provision
for declaratory and further relief in a single proceeding does not change rule
that plaintiff must determine whether remedy is at law or in equity and proceed
accordingly. Mayer v. First Nat. Bank, 260 Or 119, 489 P2d 385 (1971)
A
declaratory judgment proceeding will be treated either legal or equitable,
depending upon its nature. May v. Chicago Ins. Co., 260 Or 285, 490 P2d 150
(1971)
Declaratory
judgment proceedings to determine coverage under insurance policies are legal
in nature. May v. Chicago Ins. Co., 260 Or 285, 490 P2d 150 (1971)
A
proceeding to determine whether individuals are tortiously
liable is legal in nature; therefore, the findings of the trial court which are
supported by evidence must be accepted as correct on appeal. Grange Ins. Assn.
v. Zumwalt, 272 Or 263, 536 P2d 428 (1975)
Declaratory
judgment proceedings requesting the construction of contracts are legal in
nature, and factual determinations by the trier of
fact which are supported by evidence are treated as final on appeal. C & B
Livestock, Inc. v. Johns, 273 Or 6, 539 P2d 645 (1975)
Declaratory
judgment would not issue with respect to constitutionality of regulations
required pursuant to civil commitment statute (ORS 426.220) where Mental Health
Division had not yet promulgated such administrative rules. Pyle v. Brooks, 31
Or App 479, 570 P2d 990 (1977)
Circuit
court had authority to determine whether Attorney General had statutory duty,
but lacked authority to determine whether exercise of duty would violate
attorney disciplinary rules. Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446, 648 P2d
1289 (1982)
Action
seeking injunction against rule not yet in effect was not action involving
enforcement within jurisdiction of circuit court. Alto v. State Fire Marshal,
319 Or 382, 876 P2d 774 (1994)
Declaratory
judgment is not available to compel agency to change action taken. Mendieta v. Division of State Lands, 148 Or App 586, 941
P2d 582 (1997)
Determination
under ORS 28.080 concerning what coercive relief is necessary to effectuate
declaratory judgment is separate from process of analyzing party rights, status
or other legal relations in order to issue declaratory judgment. Ken Leahy
Construction, Inc. v. Cascade General, Inc., 329 Or 566, 994 P2d 112 (1999)
28.020
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Citizen
had standing, in declaratory judgment proceeding, to sue city to test validity
of ordinance authorizing police to detain citizens for up to two hours.
Cornelius v. City of Ashland, 12 Or App 181, 506 P2d 182 (1973), Sup Ct review
denied
In
declaratory judgment proceeding to invalidate contract between hospital
district and physician, complaint alleging that plaintiff was “resident and
inhabitant” and “taxpayer” residing within boundaries of district was subject
to demurrer because it failed to show how plaintiff’s “rights, status or other
legal relations” were affected by contract. Gruber v. Lincoln Hospital
District, 285 Or 3, 588 P2d 1281 (1979)
Where
ordinance required car rental companies to collect and remit tax on motor
vehicle rentals, tax was not invalid on ground of improper adoption procedures,
improper use of tax funds, or unconstitutional impact on interstate commerce.
Budget Rent-A-Car v. Multnomah County, 287 Or 93, 597 P2d 1232 (1979)
Subcontractor
who was not directly involved in bidding process had standing, by virtue of its
economic interest in protecting its ability to bid as a subcontractor, to bring
declaratory judgment action asserting that city offering contract violated
[former] ORS 279.017. Morse Bros. Prestress, Inc. v.
City of Lake Oswego, 55 Or App 960, 640 P2d 650 (1982)
Economic
harm to plaintiff caused by defendant’s substantial advantage gained through
absence of workers compensation insurance expense constituted “rights, status
or other legal relations” affected by statute and thereby conferred standing to
obtain declaratory judgment. Associated Reforestation Contractors v. Workers
Comp. Bd., 59 Or App 348, 650 P2d 1068 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
To
establish standing, taxpayer must show present or foreseeable financial
interest. Chadwick v. Alexander, 310 Or 700, 801 P2d 797 (1991)
Requirement
that person bringing action be “affected” by statute prevents representational
standing. Oregon Taxpayers United PAC v. Keisling,
143 Or App 537, 924 P2d 853 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Determination
under ORS 28.080 concerning what coercive relief is necessary to effectuate
declaratory judgment is separate from process of analyzing party rights, status
or other legal relations in order to issue declaratory judgment. Ken Leahy
Construction, Inc. v. Cascade General, Inc., 329 Or 566, 994 P2d 112 (1999)
Requirement
that complaint state justiciable controversy is
jurisdictional. Beck v. City of Portland, 202 Or App 360, 122 P3d 131 (2005)
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 2 EL 331 (1972);
40 WLR 563 (2004)
28.030
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Determination
under ORS 28.080 concerning what coercive relief is necessary to effectuate
declaratory judgment is separate from process of analyzing contractual rights
in order to issue declaratory judgment. Ken Leahy Construction, Inc. v. Cascade
General, Inc., 329 Or 566, 994 P2d 112 (1999)
28.040
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under
this section, together with ORS 28.110 and 111.095, person seeking
determination of heirship may request declaratory
relief in proceeding to which all persons who have or claim any interest must
be made parties. Decker v. Wiman, 288 Or 687, 607 P2d
1370 (1980)
28.080
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Legislature
did not intend, by its provision in ORS 183.400 (1) that petition to have
validity of rule determined may be “filed as provided by ORS chapter 28,” to
incorporate provisions for additional relief in this section. Burke v. Children’s
Services Division, 288 Or 533, 607 P2d 141 (1980)
Party
is not precluded from seeking supplemental relief by its failure to seek
recovery in original declaratory action, nor is judgment granting supplemental
relief void even though certain nonsubstantive
decisions were made by trial court when jurisdiction was reposed in appellate
court. Dry Canyon Farms v. U.S. National Bank of Oregon, 96 Or App 190, 772 P2d
1343 (1989)
Where
ORS 182.090 provided for remedy award of attorney fees to successful litigant,
and where that statute establishes conditions for its application, it was
inappropriate for court to import into this more general section, same or even
broader authority to award attorney fees. Samuel v. Frohnmayer,
308 Or 362, 779 P2d 1028 (1989)
Availability
of supplementary relief does not preclude seeking other forms of relief. O’Connor
v. Zeldin, 134 Or App 444, 895 P2d 809 (1995)
Determination
concerning what coercive relief is necessary to effectuate declaratory judgment
is separate from process of analyzing party rights, status or other legal
relations under ORS 28.010, 28.020 or 28.030 in order to issue declaratory judgment.
Ken Leahy Construction, Inc. v. Cascade General, Inc., 329 Or 566, 994 P2d 112
(1999)
28.090
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Declaratory
judgment proceeding may be reviewed either as action at law or as suit in
equity, depending upon its nature. Frontier Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Hartford Fire
Ins. Co., 262 Or 470, 499 P2d 1302 (1972)
Declaratory
judgment proceeding which was in the nature of action on insurance contract was
treated as action at law, and appellate court was bound by trial court’s
findings if they are supported by any substantial evidence. Frontier Ins.
Agency, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 262 Or 470, 499 P2d 1302 (1972)
Declaratory
judgment proceedings requesting the construction of contracts are legal in
nature, and factual determinations by the trier of
fact which are supported by evidence are treated as final on appeal. C & B
Livestock, Inc. v. Johns, 273 Or 6, 539 P2d 645 (1975)
Where
all claims in which plaintiff prevailed were equitable in nature and
historically tried in equity, defendants were not entitled to jury trial. Agnew
v. Haskell, 71 Or App 357, 692 P2d 650 (1984)
28.110
NOTES OF DECISIONS
State
is not necessarily proper party to every private litigation in which
constitutionality of a law is challenged, although state should properly be
admitted as amicus curiae. Carden v. Johnson, 282 Or 169, 577 P2d 513 (1978)
Oregon
Liquor Control Commission was necessary and indispensable party in suit brought
under this section by retail wine sellers against
wholesale wine sellers for declaratory judgment that
certain dock sales were in violation of Liquor Control Act. Pike v. Allen
International Ltd., 287 Or 55, 597 P2d 804 (1979)
Under
this section, together with ORS 28.040 and 111.095, person seeking
determination of heirship may request declaratory
relief in proceeding to which all persons who have or claim any interest must
be made parties. Decker v. Wiman, 288 Or 687, 607 P2d
1370 (1980)
Circuit
court was without jurisdiction to hear allegations that state statute and municipal
charter were unconstitutional where Attorney General had not been served with
notice of the proceeding and given opportunity to be heard. Warren v. City of
Canby, 56 Or App 230, 641 P2d 615 (1982)
Where
plaintiff failed to name all interested parties in a declaratory judgment
action about validity of trust, even though cousins’ interests as beneficiaries
might remain unaffected by decision that trust invalid, that possibility is not
adequate basis for failing to comply with ORS 28.110 and trial court could not
enter binding judgment unless remaining beneficiaries of trust are joined
within time to be set by trial court. Eddy v. Eddy, 95 Or App 733, 770 P2d 969
(1989), Sup Ct review denied
Party
who may have or claim interest in land sale contract is necessary party and
failure to join necessary party in declaratory judgment action deprives court
of authority to render binding judgment. Futrell v.
Wagner, 96 Or App 27, 771 P2d 292 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Default
judgment does not bar third party from litigating issue if party against whom
issue was previously decided was not adversely affected by that adjudication.
Farmers Ins. Co. v. Stockton, 112 Or App 120, 827 P2d 938 (1992); Austin Mutual
Ins. Co. v. McMannamy, 145 Or App 437, 929 P2d
1081 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Although
failure to join necessary parties prevents court from entering final
declaratory judgment about subject matter, court may exercise power to join
omitted parties rather than dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan v. Doe, 138 Or App 428, 908 P2d 850 (1996), Sup Ct review
denied
Where
necessary parties have not been joined in motion for declaratory judgment, if
parties lack identity of interest, motion should be dismissed if parties are not
joined after time set by court. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan v. Doe, 138 Or
App 428, 908 P2d 850 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Where
necessary parties have not been joined in motion for declaratory judgment, if
parties have identity of interest, court should join parties and rule on
motion. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan v. Doe, 138 Or App 428, 908 P2d 850
(1996), Sup Ct review denied
All
persons whose interests are affected by action must be joined in order to yield
jurisdiction to enter declaratory judgment. AFSCME v. Dept. of Administrative
Services, 150 Or App 87, 945 P2d 102 (1997)
28.130
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 40 WLR 563 (2004)
28.200 to 28.255
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Where
Oregon law not Washington Deadman’s Statute governed
admissibility of testimony in interpleader action
brought by insurance company in district of Oregon, testimony of insured’s
widow and insurance agent was admissible to determine beneficiary. Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S. v. McKay, 861 F2d 221
(9th Cir. 1988)