Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

City of Seattle v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 11, 2015No. TC-RD 4946, 4957; TC-RD 4959; TC-RD 4958; SC S061813Published

1Concurring in the judgmentKistler, J.

Relying on an 1885 federal district court decision, the majority holds that a bill that caused a tax to be imposed on plaintiffs’ property was not a “bil[l] for raising revenue” within the meaning of Article IV, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution.1 It follows, the majority concludes, that Article IV, section 18, did not require that bill to originate *738in the House of Representatives. In my view, the persuasive value of the 1885 federal decision on which the majority bases its holding is doubtful. Moreover, even if the district court’s decision were correct as applied to a levy-based tax…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Northern Counties Trust v. SearsOregon Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Mumford v. SewallOregon Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Bobo v. KulongoskiOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  4. State v. MedinaOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Clackamas County Assessor v. Village at Main Street Phase II, LLCOregon Supreme Court · 2010

2 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