Morgan v. Sisters School District 6
301 P.3d 419
| Or. | 2013Background
- Morgan sued under ORS 28.020 for declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging a financing arrangement by Sisters School District #6 and its board.
- COPs issued in 2007 sought to fund district improvements, claimed as full faith and credit obligations; district claimed authority under ORS 271.390.
- Morgan alleged the COPs were bonds needing voter approval and that his status as voter/taxpayer would be affected.
- Trial court denied summary judgment; district won; Court of Appeals affirmed; Oregon Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.
- Court analyzes standing: rights/status must be affected, injury must be real or practical, and relief must have a practical effect; voter standing not preserved; taxpayer and hybrid theories fail as speculative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morgan has standing as a voter under ORS 28.020. | Morgan alleges denial of voting rights affects him. | No preserved voter-standing theory; denial does not affect outcome. | Morgan lacks voter standing. |
| Whether Morgan has standing as a taxpayer under ORS 28.020. | Taxpayer status could be affected by fiscal impact of COPs. | Allegations are too speculative; no present injury. | Taxpayer standing not established. |
| Whether Morgan has any other recognized standing, including hybrid standing, and whether declaratory relief is actionable here. | Hybrid theory should allow standing; declaratory relief would vindicate rights. | Hybrid standing lacks basis; relief would be advisory; no justiciable controversy. | No standing under hybrid theory; declaratory relief insufficient for justiciability. |
Key Cases Cited
- League of Oregon Cities v. State of Oregon, 334 Or 645 (2002) (requires a real injury beyond abstract interest to have standing under ORS 28.020)
- Eacret v. Holmes, 215 Or 121 (1958) (plaintiffs must show a concrete injury; public-right challenges lack standing)
- TVKO v. Howland, 335 Or 527 (2003) (declaratory judgments require actual controversy, not contingent events)
- Gruber v. Lincoln Hospital District, 285 Or 3 (1979) (taxpayer standing requires actual or potential adverse fiscal consequences shown to affect the plaintiff)
- Savage v. Munn, 317 Or 283 (1993) (taxpayer challenges based on fiscal impact must show present, not hypothetical, effect)
- Hazell v. Brown, 352 Or 455 (2012) (standing requires specific relief connected to challenged provisions; mere advisory opinion not enough)
- Webb v. Clatsop Co. School Dist. 3, 188 Or 324 (1950) (denial of the right to vote can support standing if relief remedies the injury)
- Cummings Construction v. School District No. 9, 242 Or 106 (1965) (contracting plaintiffs lacking standing when no direct adverse impact shown)
- Kellas v. Dept. of Corrections, 341 Or 471 (2006) (standing requires some practical effect on rights)
- Carey v. Lincoln Loan Co., 342 Or 530 (2007) (declaratory relief can have practical effect when rights under contract are at issue)