## Facts

- Landowners and related entities held interests in a 23-acre parcel in Clackamas County, Oregon, outside an urban growth boundary.
- They filed a written claim under Ballot Measure 37 (former ORS 197.352 (2005)), alleging land-use regulations reduced the property’s fair market value and seeking compensation.
- The responsible state agency issued a final order choosing to waive enforcement of certain regulations rather than pay compensation.
- The landowners sought judicial review in the Oregon Court of Appeals, which issued a merits decision regarding the agency’s Measure 37 order.
- The agency petitioned for Oregon Supreme Court review; review was allowed.
- While review was pending, Ballot Measure 49 (2007) became effective, substantially altering Measure 37 remedies and purporting to apply to existing Measure 37 claims.
- The agency notified the court of potential mootness and moved to dismiss as moot and to vacate and remand, arguing the statutory changes eliminated any live controversy and that the Court of Appeals decision should not remain precedential.
- The landowners disputed mootness and opposed vacatur.

## Issues

1. Whether Measure 49’s enactment, which substantially changed and limited Measure 37 remedies and applied to existing claims, rendered the pending dispute moot because a decision would no longer have a practical effect on the parties’ rights.
2. If moot, whether the Oregon Supreme Court should vacate the Court of Appeals’ decision and remand.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review as moot because Measure 49 changed the operative legal framework and remedies such that a decision on Measure 37 issues would have no practical effect on the parties’ current rights.
- The court denied the agency’s motion to vacate and remand, leaving the Court of Appeals decision in place.

## Legal Principles

- A case is moot when a court’s decision will no longer have a practical effect on the rights of the parties.
- Intervening statutory or voter-enacted changes that replace or materially alter the governing remedial scheme can moot a pending dispute over prior law.
- Mootness does not automatically justify vacatur of a lower-court decision; vacatur is discretionary.
- In exercising discretion on vacatur, the court may consider fairness to the prevailing party below, the public interest in retaining existing appellate decisions, and the fact that the lower-court decision resolved a live controversy when issued.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court held that Measure 49 mooted the pending Measure 37 dispute and dismissed review, but it declined to vacate the Court of Appeals decision, confirming that mootness alone does not require erasing lower-court precedent.


Corey v. Dep’t of Land Conservation & Dev., 344 Or. 457, 184 P.3d 1109 (Or. 2008)