Cornelius v. City of Ashland
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentThornton, J.
In order to maintain his declaratory judgment action to challenge the Ashland ordinance, plaintiff must first demonstrate that he has standing, namely, that he is a “person * * * whose rights, status or other legal relations” are affected by the ordinance. ORS 28.020. Standing requires the allegation of a substantial interest in the matter in controversy. Gortmaker v. Seaton, 252 Or 440, 450 P2d 547 (1969).
The plaintiff’s only claim to such a substantial interest is that he is a resident of Ashland. As such, he asserts in his complaint, his “rights and liberties are subject to being deprived…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Dombrowski v. PfisterSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdorySupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Anthony v. VeatchOregon Supreme Court · 1950
- Cummings Construction Co. v. School District No. 9Oregon Supreme Court · 1965
- Gortmaker v. SeatonOregon Supreme Court · 1969
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.