Portland Metro. Assn. of Realtors v. City of Portland

"A case becomes moot when a court’s decision will no longer have a practical effect on the rights of the parties” which requires the moving party “to identify any collateral consequences that he or she contends has the effect of producing the required practical effects of a judicial decision” and demonstrate that “any of those identified collateral consequences either does not exist or is legally insufficient.” State v. K. J. B., 362 Or 777 (2018)

Petitioners appealed a judgment that granted their writ of review challenging Portland City Council’s decision to approve Ordinance 187150. Petitioners assigned error to the trial court’s decision to remand a portion of the city ordinance that was under review. On appeal, Petitioners argued that, under ORS 34.100, the trial court only had the authority to either annul or reverse the ordinance. In response, Respondent argued that the case was moot because Ordinance 187150 “never took effect nor were fees collected pursuant to that ordinance.” In general, “a case becomes moot when a court’s decision will no longer have a practical effect on the rights of the parties” which requires the moving party “to identify any collateral consequences that he or she contends has the effect of producing the required practical effects of a judicial decision” and demonstrate that “any of those identified collateral consequences either does not exist or is legally insufficient.” State v. K. J. B., 362 Or 777 (2018). The Court held that Respondent carried the burden in establishing that the case was moot because the Ordinance was replaced and never took effect.