Martinez v. Kulongoski
Court of Appeals of Oregon
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
- United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Raven v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2001
- Armatta v. KitzhaberOregon Supreme Court · 1998
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Strauss v. HortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of StateMichigan Court of Appeals · 2008
- Fair Elections Portland, Inc. v. City of PortlandSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2021
- Strauss v. HortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009