Lane v. Marion County D.A.'s Office

The Supreme Court identified three criteria to “guide the determination of whether a decision-making process was quasi-judicial, (1) Was the process, once begun, bound to result in a decision? (2) Was the decision-maker bound to apply pre-existing criteria to concrete facts? (3) Was the decision directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small number of persons?” Hicks v. Cent. Point Sch. Dist., 270 Or App at 544 (2015) (citing Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v. Board of Comm’rs, 287 Or at 602-03).

Petitioner is a public safety officer who sought removal from the district attorney’s office’s “Brady list.” Petitioner appeals the trial court’s denial, arguing that this determination met the criteria of being a “quasi-judicial act,” one of the limited types of decisions that may be reviewed by courts. Respondent argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to preside over the writ review proceeding. The Supreme Court identified three criteria to “guide the determination of whether a decision-making process was quasi-judicial, (1) Was the process, once begun, bound to result in a decision? (2) Was the decision-maker bound to apply pre-existing criteria to concrete facts? (3) Was the decision directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small number of persons?” Hicks v. Cent. Point Sch. Dist., 270 Or App at 544 (2015) (citing Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v. Board of Comm’rs, 287 Or at 602-03). The Court affirmed the decision by stating that the district attorney’s office was under no obligation to reconsider their decision, Petitioner failed to identify “preexisting criteria” which the Respondent was “bound to apply,” and; Respondent acknowledged that this factor alone is inconclusive. A writ is not the proper route to challenge the denial of the removal. Affirmed.