Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
West Linn-Wilsonville School District 3 J T v. Seida
Citations: 328 Or. 10; 968 P.2d 1268; 1998 Ore. LEXIS 1018Docket: CC 95-10408; CA A95504; SC S44283
Court: Oregon Supreme Court; November 27, 1998; Oregon; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Supreme Court of Oregon vacated the Court of Appeals' order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the appeal as moot. The case originated from an eminent domain proceeding initiated by the West Linn-Wilsonville School District against defendants Kent and David Seida and Joyce Burnett, who owned land intended for a new middle school. Curtis M. Hunter sought to intervene in the proceeding, claiming a contractual right to purchase materials from the land. His motion was denied by the circuit court, which later settled the case between the School District and the defendants. Hunter then appealed the denial of his motion to intervene. However, the circuit court determined that the order was not appealable and issued a final judgment requiring the School District to pay $1,100,000 to the defendants as part of the settlement, which was subsequently fulfilled. Despite Hunter's later motions to stay proceedings and determine appealability, the completion of the settlement effectively rendered any potential effects of the denial moot, leading to the dismissal of his appeal. The Court of Appeals found that the circuit court's denial of Hunter's motion to intervene was appealable, leading to a petition for review that was granted. However, the order was issued after the final judgment was entered, meaning no further action remained for Hunter to intervene in. Consequently, even if Hunter succeeded in the appeal, it would not affect the eminent domain proceedings, rendering the appeal moot. The Court cited Brumnett v. PSRB, which establishes that if a court's decision cannot practically impact the parties' rights, it is dismissed as moot. As a result, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to continue with the appeal post-final judgment, necessitating the vacation of its order. The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal as moot. The excerpt also references various provisions of former ORS 19.034, which govern the appeal process, intervention rights, and the trial court's jurisdiction regarding appealable decisions. Specifically, it notes that despite Hunter's pending appeal, the trial court had the authority to enter a final judgment upon determining the denial of intervention was not appealable.