Legal Opinion

Leo v. Keisling

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 7, 1998No. CC 98C-17232; CA A103357; SC S45677PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLeeson, J.

In this certified appeal, the parties ask us to decide the following question:

“Is it unconstitutional for the Secretary of State to qualify an initiative to the ballot, relying on that ‘margin of error,’ ‘within the acceptable limits of the target,’ or any other similar statistical term, if the two statistical samplings done both produce estimates that the initiative petition was not ‘signed by a number of qualified voters equal [or greater than] six (6) percent of the total number of votes’ in the last gubernatorial election in Oregon?” (Brackets in original.)

The parties frame that question…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Department of Human ResourcesOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  3. State v. LowryOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Burke v. Children's Services DivisionOregon Supreme Court · 1980
  5. State Ex Rel. Keisling v. NorbladOregon Supreme Court · 1993

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. State v. TuckerOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  2. League of Oregon Cities v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  3. US West Communications, Inc. v. City of EugeneOregon Supreme Court · 2003
  4. State v. MooreOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  5. In Re the Marriage of CrockerOregon Supreme Court · 2001

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API