- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Property Law
- Date Filed: 09-01-2021
- Case #: A170148
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Kamins, J., for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Powers, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Nevius sought declaratory relief and an injunction against Palomares for alleged violation of the terms of an easement. Palomares filed a motion to dismiss and the trial court granted the same. On appeal, Nevius assigned error to the trial court’s dismissal on the grounds that the case had been rendered moot because Polomares decided to voluntarily comply with the easement terms. Palomares argued that they learned of the easement only upon receipt of Nevius’ complaint and that their subsequent compliance with the easement rendered the controversy moot. The voluntary cessation doctrine renders a case moot only when it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 US 85, 91, 133 S Ct 721 (2013). The Court held that the voluntary cessation doctrine applied because Palomares obeyed the easement terms not to comply with a court order but of their own volition, and therefore could resume violation of the easement as soon as the case was rendered moot. Dismissal was improper on that basis. Reversed and remanded.