Parties
- service on Attorney General when constitutional question involved
Source:
Section 28.110 — Parties; service on Attorney General when constitutional question involved, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors028.html.
Notes of Decisions
State is not necessarily proper party to every private litigation in which constitutionality of a law is challenged, although state should properly be admitted as amicus curiae. Carden v. Johnson, 282 Or 169, 577 P2d 513 (1978)
Oregon Liquor Control Commission was necessary and indispensable party in suit brought under this section by retail wine sellers against wholesale wine sellers for declaratory judgment that certain dock sales were in violation of Liquor Control Act. Pike v. Allen International Ltd., 287 Or 55, 597 P2d 804 (1979)
Under this section, together with [former] ORS 28.040 and ORS 111.095, person seeking determination of heirship may request declaratory relief in proceeding to which all persons who have or claim any interest must be made parties. Decker v. Wiman, 288 Or 687, 607 P2d 1370 (1980)
Circuit court was without jurisdiction to hear allegations that state statute and municipal charter were unconstitutional where Attorney General had not been served with notice of the proceeding and given opportunity to be heard. Warren v. City of Canby, 56 Or App 230, 641 P2d 615 (1982)
Where plaintiff failed to name all interested parties in a declaratory judgment action about validity of trust, even though cousins’ interests as beneficiaries might remain unaffected by decision that trust invalid, that possibility is not adequate basis for failing to comply with ORS 28.110 and trial court could not enter binding judgment unless remaining beneficiaries of trust are joined within time to be set by trial court. Eddy v. Eddy, 95 Or App 733, 770 P2d 969 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Party who may have or claim interest in land sale contract is necessary party and failure to join necessary party in declaratory judgment action deprives court of authority to render binding judgment. Futrell v. Wagner, 96 Or App 27, 771 P2d 292 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Default judgment does not bar third party from litigating issue if party against whom issue was previously decided was not adversely affected by that adjudication. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Stockton, 112 Or App 120, 827 P2d 938 (1992); Austin Mutual Ins. Co. v. McMannamy, 145 Or App 437, 929 P2d 1081 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Although failure to join necessary parties prevents court from entering final declaratory judgment about subject matter, court may exercise power to join omitted parties rather than dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan v. Doe, 138 Or App 428, 908 P2d 850 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Where necessary parties have not been joined in motion for declaratory judgment, if parties lack identity of interest, motion should be dismissed if parties are not joined after time set by court. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan v. Doe, 138 Or App 428, 908 P2d 850 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Where necessary parties have not been joined in motion for declaratory judgment, if parties have identity of interest, court should join parties and rule on motion. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan v. Doe, 138 Or App 428, 908 P2d 850 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
All persons whose interests are affected by action must be joined in order to yield jurisdiction to enter declaratory judgment. AFSCME v. Dept. of Administrative Services, 150 Or App 87, 945 P2d 102 (1997)
Up to date