Posted November 18, 2013
In Hale v. State of Oregon, Or. Ct. App., A150572 (Nov. 14, 2013), the Oregon Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the state’s “right to farm” law. Capital Press reported the story in an article here. The opinion is available here.
“Right to Farm” laws generally provide a defense for property owners who are sued for nuisance or trespass resulting from agricultural or forestry practices. Information on “Right to Farm” statutes for all fifty states is available on the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.
Background
Plaintiffs are property owners who use only organic farming and forestry practices. Id. at *1. Defendants are neighbors who farm using pesticides that do not qualify as organic. Id. In an earlier case, plaintiffs filed an action against a neighbor alleging that the chemical intrusion was a trespass. Id., citing Hale v. Klemp, 184 P.3d 1185 (2008). The neighbor raised an affirmative defense based on Or. Rev. Stat. §§30.930-30.947 (“Right to Farm and Right to Forest Act”). Id. at *1. Plaintiffs, then, voluntarily dismissed the action. Id.
In this case, plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the Right to Farm and Forest Act deprives them of a remedy in violation of the remedy clause of the Oregon Constitution. Id. at *2. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs had not stated a “justiciable controversy.” Id.
Analysis and Holding
The appeals court affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that the court did not have jurisdiction because injury to the plaintiff was only speculative. Id. at *10. The court noted that declaratory judgment is “preventive justice, designed to relieve parties of uncertainty by adjudicating their rights and duties before wrongs have actually been committed.” Id. at *4. To be justiciable, the dispute must involve “present facts, and it must be a dispute in which a prevailing plaintiff can receive meaningful relief from a losing defendant.” Id. at *5. Since plaintiff’s neighbors are not parties to the case, they are not bound by the outcome, thus the claim is not justiciable. Id. at *5-6.
Share: