Chapter § 11.3

• Jurisdiction: Oregon

§ 11.3 RIPENESS

The issue of ripeness requires an inquiry into whether the controversy involves present facts as opposed to hypothetical future events. Hill v. City of Portland, 296 Or App 470, 476, 439 P3d 564 (2019). When the claim is under the UDJA, the Oregon Supreme Court has indicated that the legislature's use of the present tense in that statute implies that the controversy "must involve a dispute based on present facts rather than on contingent or hypothetical events." US West Communications, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 336 Or 181, 191, 81 P3d 702 (2003) (the company could not challenge government decisions that would apply to the company only if certain future events were to occur). See also TVKO v. Howland, 335 Or 527, 534-37, 73 P3d 905 (2003) ("Nothing in the record indicated that plaintiff ever had broadcast a pay-per-view boxing or wrestling event from Oregon, made plans to do so, or even considered such an enterprise.").

A concept that appears to be akin to ripeness is the requirement that the requested declaration solve the plaintiff's problem. In the words of the Oregon Supreme Court, a challenger must ask for relief "that, if granted, would . . . remed[y] the injury of which the plaintiff complain[s]." Morgan, 353 Or at 199. In Morgan, 353 Or at 199, the plaintiff-voter, who contended that the law required the government to conduct a vote before the government incurred an obligation, sought a declaration that the government "should have held [an election]." Under Swett v. Bradbury, 335 Or 378, 389, 67 P3d 391 (2003), and Burke v. Children's Services Division, 288 Or 533, 548, 607 P2d 141 (1980), the plaintiff could reasonably have believed that the requested declaration was sufficient to state a claim. In those cases, the supreme court "assume[d] that the responsible state officials would honor the court's declaration without the necessity of an accompanying injunction." Swett, 335 Or at 389. In Morgan, however, the supreme court held that the plaintiff did not state a claim under the UDJA in part because the plaintiff did...