Opinion · Court of Appeals of Oregon
McKnight v. Land Conservation & Development Commission
McKnight v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 69 Or. App. 642 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Oregon
- Jurisdiction
- Oregon
- Date
- 1984-09-05
- Topic
- general
*643 PER CURIAM Petitioners seek a ruling under ORS 183.400 that respondent’s temporary rule OAR 660-14-000 is invalid. That rule became effective on July 20, 1983, and was replaced on December 30, 1983, by OAR 660-14-000 through 660-14-040, which are permanent rules. The rule petitioners attack is no longer in existence, and our decision would “merely resolve an abstract question without practical effect.” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Holland, 290 Or 765, 767, 625 P2d 1318 (1981).
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed McKnight v. Land Conservation & Development Commission. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 4 opinions
Petitioners seek a ruling under ORS 183.400 that respondent’s temporary rule OAR 660-14-000 is invalid. That rule became effective on July 20, 1983, and was replaced on December 30, 1983, by OAR 660-14-000 through 660-14-040, which are permanent rules. The rule petitioners attack is no longer in existence, and our decision would “merely resolve an abstract question without practical effect.” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Holland, 290 Or 765, 767, 625 P2d 1318 (1981). To the extent that the rule may affect petitioners’ rights in other cases, they may renew their attacks in those cases. This case, however, is moot, and we therefore dismiss the petition.
Petition for judicial review dismissed.