Opinion ID: 835999
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal Principles Respecting Standing

Text: Having determined that the trial court appropriately assumed jurisdiction under the UDJA, we now turn to intervenor's argument that no plaintiff in either action had standing to challenge Measure 7 under that statutory scheme. Although we agree with intervenor respecting three McCall plaintiffs (McCall, MacPherson, and Swaim) and two League plaintiffs (individual plaintiffs Stein and Katz), we conclude that plaintiffs Lewis and Tipperman, among McCall plaintiffs, and the remaining League plaintiffs (local government plaintiffs) have standing to challenge Measure 7. The requirements for standing under the UDJA are set out in ORS 28.020: Any person    whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a constitution, statute, [or] municipal charter    may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under any such    constitution, statute, [or] municipal charter    and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder. Additionally, ORS 28.130 defines the word person as used in the UDJA    to mean any person, partnership, joint stock company, unincorporated association or society, or municipal or other corporation of any character whatsoever. Thus, to establish standing, a plaintiff must show that the plaintiff is a person as defined in ORS 28.130 and that the plaintiff's rights, status or other legal relations are affected by the law or enactment at issue. In identifying the requisite [e]ffect[ ] to establish standing under ORS 28.020, this court has held that a plaintiff must show some injury or other impact upon a legally recognized interest beyond an abstract interest in the correct application or the validity of a law. Eckles v. State of Oregon, 306 Or. 380, 385, 760 P.2d 846 (1988). In addition, the plaintiff's showing of that injury or other impact must not be too speculative. Gruber v. Lincoln Hospital District, 285 Or. 3, 7, 588 P.2d 1281 (1979). With those requirements in mind, we turn to the evidence of injury or other impact that plaintiffs offered before the trial court. Because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from them in favor of the nonmoving partiesin this case, the state and intervenor. Robinson v. Lamb's Wilsonville Thriftway, 332 Or. 453, 455, 31 P.3d 421 (2001).