Legal Opinion

Martinez v. Kulongoski

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 21, 2008No. 05C11023; A130818PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, P. J.

Plaintiffs brought this action for declaratory relief against the Governor and the State of Oregon (the state), seeking a declaration that Ballot Measure 36 (2004), a voter-initiated measure, which prohibited recognition of same-sex marriages, did not comply with the provisions of Article XVII, sections 1 and 2, of the Oregon Constitution. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs appeal, raising two overarching issues: (1) Did Measure 36 embody a “revision” to the constitution that could not originate from a voter initiative?…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Raven v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Armatta v. KitzhaberOregon Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Strauss v. HortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of StateMichigan Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. Fair Elections Portland, Inc. v. City of PortlandSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2021
  4. Strauss v. HortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API