Case ID: or-app_72/html/0778-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted February 1,
    affirmed March 20, 1985
    DINSDALE, Appellant, v. YOUNG et al, Respondents.
    
    (148463; CA A32089)
    697 P2d 200
    Robert L. Nash, Bend, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Johnson, Marceau, Karnopp & Petersen, Bend.
    Philip Schradle, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
    Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, Joseph, Chief Judge, and Warden, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Dinsdale appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of this mandamus action, by which plaintiffs sought to compel defendants to process plaintiffs’ water permit applications. The relevant facts are set out in Dinsdale v. Young, 72 Or App 642, 697 P2d 196 (1985).

Defendants argue, inter alia, that the dismissal was proper because plaintiffs have “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” ORS 34.110. That remedy, according to defendants, is a proceeding under ORS 183.490 to compel defendants to act and a proceeding under ORS 183.400 to challenge the validity of the administrative rule upon which defendants base their refusal to act.

Neither party disputes that defendants come within the definition of an “agency,” ORS 183.310(1), and are subject to the Administrative Procedures Act. ORS 183.310 et seq. Under the circumstances before us, the APA remedies are exclusive, and recourse to mandamus is not available for that reason. See, e.g., School Dist. No. 48 v. Fair Dis. App. Bd., 14 Or App 35, 512 P2d 799 (1973).

Affirmed. 
      
       The other plaintiffs do not appeal.