McNichols v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
  • Date Filed: 01-06-2021
  • Case #: A172135
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, P.J. for the court; James, J. & Kamins, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A plaintiff, unable to establish actual injury, has no standing under either ORS 183.480 or ORS 28.020 factor tests.

Plaintiff challenged “a settlement agreement between the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Canby Development, LLC (Canby Development).” Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s dismissal of their challenge due to lack of standing. Under ORS 183.480, if a person is not a party to a case, to establish standing they must show “they are adversely affected or aggrieved by the order” by meeting ““one or more of the following factors: (1) the person has suffered an injury to a substantial interest … (2) the person seeks to further an interest that the legislature expressly wished to have considered… or (3) the person has such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy...” People for Ethical Treatment v. Inst. Animal Care, 312 Or 95, 101-02, 817 P2d 1299 (1991) (PETA). Standing may also be met under ORS 28.020 by showing “that the challenged writing (1) “injur[es] or impact[s]… a legally recognized interest,” (2) “that the claimed injury or impact is real or probable…”; and (3) “that a decision by the court will in some sense rectify the injury.” MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland, 360 Or 544, 554-55, 383 P3d 800 (2016). The court found that the plaintiff was unable to establish an actual injury. Therefore, standing is not proper under either test. Affirmed.

Advanced Search

Back to Top