Courts apply the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens when necessary to prevent the imposition of an inconvenient jurisdiction on a litigant. A trial court may, in its discretion, dismiss a case even when contacts between the defendant and the forum state exist that may confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, if the case itself has no significant connection to the forum.

A resident plaintiff’s forum choice deserves deference, all else being more or less equal, but that choice does not foreclose a defendant from demonstrating that the private and public interest factors favor dismissal when another forum’s interests predominate.

In Oregon, the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it determines that the forum is inconvenient for the parties involved, even if the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and practicality in litigation. While a plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given deference, especially if the plaintiff is a resident of the state, this preference can be overridden if the defendant can show that both private and public interest factors strongly favor the case being heard in a different jurisdiction. Private interest factors might include the location of evidence or witnesses, while public interest factors could involve the administrative burden on local courts or the interest of a community in having local disputes settled locally. The application of this doctrine is discretionary and is meant to serve the interests of justice by considering the convenience of the parties and the connection of the case to the forum state.