Court Opinion

ID: 9595508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:41:14.497903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:28.069937
License: Public Domain

THORNTON, J.,
concurring.
While I am in accord with everything stated in the prevailing opinion, it seems to me that we have not fully addressed the precise issue the state raises in its appeal.
The state’s assignment of error reads:
"The trial court erred in refusing to enjoin the defendant from further violations of ORS 646.608(1)(e) and (g). The trial court erred in concluding that an injunction should not issue since the defendant had engaged in a single unlawful act, rather than in an unlawful method or practice.”
In its brief the state says:
"This case presents a legal question of first impression in this jurisdiction: whether, to obtain an injunction under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, ORS 646.605 et seq., the state must show a continuing unlawful method or practice, or whether the Act provides for the issuance of an injunction following a single unlawful act?”
From an examination of the Act, it would appear that the legislative intent on this point was this: that proof of a single past unlawful action could, in some circumstances, justify the issuance of an injunction, and that in those circumstances it would not be necessary for the state to show a continuing unlawful practice in order for an injunction to be granted. Nevertheless, the issuance of an injunction under the Act is still a matter of sound judicial discretion, as the United States Supreme Court has held in applying similar *14statutory provisions. These decisions are cited in the prevailing opinion.
Thus the trial judge here did not err when he refused to issue the injunction for the reason that the evidence established that defendant had engaged in a single unlawful act only.