Posted November 18, 2013
In Hale v. State
of Oregon, Or. Ct. App., A150572 (Nov. 14, 2013), the Oregon Court of
Appeals dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the
state’s “right to farm” law. Capital
Press reported the story in an article here. The opinion is available here.
“Right to Farm”
laws generally provide a defense for property owners who are sued for nuisance
or trespass resulting from agricultural or forestry practices. Information on “Right to Farm” statutes for
all fifty states is available on the National Agricultural Law Center’s website
here.
Background
Plaintiffs are property owners who use only organic
farming and forestry practices. Id. at *1. Defendants are neighbors who
farm using pesticides that do not qualify as organic. Id. In an earlier case, plaintiffs filed an
action against a neighbor alleging that the chemical intrusion was a
trespass. Id., citing Hale v. Klemp,
184 P.3d 1185 (2008). The neighbor
raised an affirmative defense based on Or. Rev. Stat. §§30.930-30.947 (“Right
to Farm and Right to Forest Act”). Id. at *1. Plaintiffs, then, voluntarily dismissed the
action. Id.
In this case, plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that
the Right to Farm and Forest Act deprives them of a remedy in violation of the
remedy clause of the Oregon Constitution.
Id. at *2. The trial court dismissed the case with
prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs had not stated a “justiciable
controversy.” Id.
Analysis and Holding
The appeals court affirmed the decision of the trial
court, holding that the court did not have jurisdiction because injury to the
plaintiff was only speculative. Id. at *10. The court noted that declaratory judgment is
“preventive justice, designed to relieve parties of uncertainty by adjudicating
their rights and duties before wrongs have actually been committed.” Id.
at *4. To be justiciable, the dispute
must involve “present facts, and it must be a dispute in which a prevailing
plaintiff can receive meaningful relief from a losing defendant.” Id.
at *5. Since plaintiff’s neighbors are
not parties to the case, they are not bound by the outcome, thus the claim is
not justiciable. Id. at *5-6.
