455 P.3d 922
Or.2019Background
- Plaintiffs Mark Kramer and Todd Prager sued the City of Lake Oswego (and the State and Lake Oswego Corporation), challenging the city’s prohibition on entering Oswego Lake from abutting waterfront parks.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Oregon Supreme Court reversed and remanded in an earlier opinion.
- The Supreme Court’s earlier opinion held that, if Oswego Lake is among the waterways subject to the state’s public trust, then neither the state nor the city may unreasonably interfere with the public’s right to enter the water from the waterfront parks; it remanded to the trial court to determine (1) whether the lake is subject to the public trust doctrine and (2) if so, whether the city’s restriction unreasonably interferes with that public right.
- The City of Lake Oswego and Lake Oswego Corporation filed petitions for reconsideration seeking minor clarifications: the city objected to a mischaracterization of its position about navigability/public trust; Lake Oswego Corporation sought confirmation that riparian-rights disputes were not resolved by the opinion.
- The Supreme Court granted reconsideration, modified the opinion to correct the mischaracterization of the city’s position, and added a footnote clarifying that ownership of riparian rights remains disputed and that the court did not decide whether private riparian ownership limits the public’s right to enter the water from public ways.
- The modified opinion was adhered to as modified and the matter was remanded for factual resolution consistent with that guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oswego Lake is subject to the public trust doctrine | Lake is navigable/public trust applies; state holds title to lakebed | City/state: lake is not among navigable waters subject to state title | Court did not decide; remanded to trial court to determine whether public trust applies |
| Whether the city’s ban on entering the lake from waterfront parks unreasonably interferes with the public right to enter (if trust applies) | Restriction unreasonably impairs public’s ability to use the public water | City contends the restriction is permissible and may be justified | Court did not decide on the merits; remanded for trial-court factfinding if trust applies |
| Accuracy of the opinion’s description of the city’s position on navigability | (N/A) Plaintiffs maintain trust applies | City argued the opinion mischaracterized its stance about whether the lake is among waters for which the state holds title | Court allowed reconsideration, corrected the wording to accurately state the city’s position |
| Relevance of riparian rights to public-trust claim (Lake Oswego Corporation) | Plaintiffs: private riparian ownership should not defeat public trust access | LOC: private riparian rights could affect plaintiffs’ claim to enter from waterfront parks | Court declined to resolve riparian-rights ownership on appeal; added footnote that ownership is disputed and did not decide whether private riparian rights limit public entry; remand preserves that issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego, 365 Or. 422, 446 P.3d 1 (2019) (Oregon Supreme Court opinion reversing trial-court summary judgment and remanding to determine applicability of public trust and whether city restrictions unreasonably interfere)
- Madison County, 373 Mont. 302 (Mont. S. Ct.) (cited for the Montana court’s rationale regarding private riparian ownership and its relationship to public access; Oregon court declined to adopt or reject that conclusion here)