Case Name: STEINBACH, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1990-02-21
Citations: 100 Or. App. 596
Docket Number: CA A51111
Parties: STEINBACH, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, Respondent.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 100
Pages: 596–597

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted December 7, 1989,
motion to dismiss rule challenge as moot granted February 21, 1990
STEINBACH, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, Respondent.
(CA A51111)
786 P2d 1325
Henry Kane, Beaverton, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner.
Robert M. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this proceeding under ORS 183.400, petitioner challenges the validity of rules adopted by the State Board of Pharmacy (Board). He contends that the Board exceeded its statutory rule-making authority by adopting rules governing the use of support personnel in the practice of pharmacy. Subsequent to the initiation of this action, the legislature amended ORS 689.225(4) to authorize the adoption of rules relating to the use of support personnel. Or Laws 1989, ch 608, § 2. Pursuant to that authority, the Board repealed the challenged rules and adopted new rules. It has filed a motion to dismiss petitioner's challenge, arguing that, because of the legislative and administrative actions, his objection is moot. We agree. See Cook v. Workers' Compensation Dept., 79 Or App 21, 717 P2d 658 (1986).
Motion to dismiss rule challenge as moot granted.