Rogue Advocates v. Board of Comm. of Jackson County, S064105

Rogue Advocates and Christine Hudson sued Jackson County and Mountain View Paving in county circuit court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop an asphalt batch plant that allegedly lacked a floodplain development permit and county verification as a lawful nonconforming use.
Defendants argued the issues were subject to Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) review; the circuit court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
While the appeal was pending, LUBA issued a final decision holding the plant was not permissible; Mountain View Paving ceased asphalt batching and relocated the plant.
The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to resolve the tension between LUBA’s exclusive review jurisdiction under ORS 197.825(1) and circuit courts’ enforcement jurisdiction under ORS 197.825(3).
After LUBA’s decision and the cessation of the plant’s operation, the Supreme Court solicited briefing on mootness and concluded the case was moot; the petition for review was dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case is justiciable or moot	Rogue Advocates sought enforcement; contended relief was still meaningful	Defendants noted LUBA decision and cessation of operations made relief academic	Court: Case is moot; dismissal granted
Whether circuit courts retain enforcement jurisdiction despite LUBA review jurisdiction under ORS 197.825	Circuit court can grant injunctions enforcing land-use regulations even if local/LUBA proceedings exist	LUBA’s exclusive review jurisdiction bars circuit-court decisions on matters that could be resolved through local or LUBA process	Court did not decide on merits because case was moot; concurrence argued circuit courts do retain enforcement jurisdiction but with limits
Whether the court should adjudicate a moot public-interest case under ORS 14.175 (capable of repetition yet evading review)	Rogue Advocates implied public interest favored review	Defendants argued matter resolved and relief unnecessary	Court declined to exercise discretion to decide a moot case under ORS 14.175
Whether Court of Appeals’ judgment should be vacated	Not requested by parties	Not requested	Court declined to order vacatur absent a party’s request

Brummet v. PSRB, 315 Or 402 (1993) (mootness depends on existence of a justiciable controversy)
TVKO v. Howland, 335 Or 527 (2003) (declaratory-judgment controversies must be based on present facts)
State v. Hemenway, 353 Or 498 (2013) (decision is moot if changed circumstances make relief impractical)
Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or 180 (2000) (case moot if event renders effectual relief impossible)
Eastern Oregon Mining Ass'n v. DEQ, 360 Or 10 (2016) (courts may decide moot cases of public interest in certain circumstances)
Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or 460 (2015) (discretionary adjudication of moot public-interest cases under ORS 14.175)
Kerr v. Bradbury, 340 Or 241 (2006) (vacatur is extraordinary and requires equitable entitlement)
Wright v. KECH-TV, 300 Or 139 (1985) (courts must dismiss enforcement suits that in substance seek review of land-use permits reserved to LUBA)
Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 325 Or 185 (1997) (doctrine of primary jurisdiction explained and applied)
Don’t Waste Oregon Comm. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132 (1994) (courts defer to agency interpretations of rules unless implausible)
Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247 (2010) (deference to local government interpretation of its own ordinances)
Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508 (1992) (LUBA must accept county interpretation of ordinance unless inconsistent with ordinance text or purpose)