Krisor v. Henry
256 Or. App. 56
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff challenged the Lake County Fair Board’s hire of Dwayne Haffner as a maintenance technician under ORS 192.610-690 for allegedly improper public meetings.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that the action was filed after the 60-day statute of limitations in ORS 192.680(5).
- In July 2008, a local ad announced a vacancy; plaintiff was not interviewed; Haffner was hired and announced at a July 29, 2008 Lake County Board of Commissioners meeting; plaintiff learned of the appointment on August 1, 2008.
- Haffner’s employment with the fair board ended before trial; at trial he was no longer employed by the board.
- Plaintiff sought voiding of the hire and recovery of costs and attorney fees under ORS 192.680(3).
- Defendants argued standing, mootness, and timeliness; the trial court found mootness to be dispositive and the appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge | Happened because plaintiff was affected by the decision | Plaintiff was not affected as he was eliminated from contention | Plaintiff had standing |
| Mootness of the case | Case remains justiciable due to potential repetition and ongoing unlawful conduct | Case moot since relief (voiding hire) already occurred | Appeal dismissed as moot |
| Statute of limitations (ORS 192.680(5)) | Public-record timing should run from the meeting where the improper act occurred | Timeliness defeated; limitations period starts when decision becomes public record | Not reached due to mootness |
Key Cases Cited
- Keeney v. University of Oregon, 178 Or App 198 (Or. App. 2001) (mootness as threshold issue)
- Kay v. David Douglas Sch. Dist. No. 40, 303 Or 574 (Or. 1987) (attorney fees do not preserve mootness when case moots before judgment)
- Yancy v. Shatzer, 337 Or 345 (Or. 2004) (court lacks power to adjudicate moot but capable of repetition yet evading review)