McIntire v. Forbes
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGraber, J.
Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the light rail funding provisions of Senate Bill 1156 (SB 1156 or the Act), enacted by the Oregon legislature in special session in August 1995. They assert that sections 1 to 17 of the Act (the substantive provisions relating to light rail funding) are invalid for a number of reasons. We conclude that sections 1 to 17 of the Act are invalid because the legislative act in which they are contained violates the “one-subject” requirement of Article IV, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution.
I. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
Intervenor 1 raises certain…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Brumnett v. Psychiatric Security Review BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Priest v. PearceOregon Supreme Court · 1992
- Brown v. Oregon State BarOregon Supreme Court · 1982
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by69 opinions
- Armatta v. KitzhaberOregon Supreme Court · 1998
- Couey v. AtkinsOregon Supreme Court · 2015
- Kellas v. Department of CorrectionsOregon Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. FugateOregon Supreme Court · 2001
- Vaughn v. First Transit, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2009
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.