Kempf v. State Accident Insurance Fund
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentJoseph, J.
The majority is correct in saying that "the only issue” tendered by the claimant is the constitutionality of ORS 656.226. The majority is also correct in saying that to declare the statute unconstitutional and wholly void would not aid her at all. But the claimant’s real argument is that the statute is unconstitutional as interpreted and applied to her. The majority sees the constitutional issue as relating to how the legislature has chosen to treat "couples”; I think the constitutional issue relates to how the legislature has chosen to treat individuals in distinguishing between unmarried…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Trimble v. GordonSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Beal v. BealOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- State Ex Rel. Nilsen v. Oregon State Motor Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1967
- Wadsworth v. BrighamOregon Supreme Court · 1927
- Curly's Dairy, Inc. v. State Department of AgricultureOregon Supreme Court · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.