Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hazell v. Brown

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 4, 2012No. CC 06C22473; CA A137397; SC S059245, S059246Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDurham, J.

I write separately because, despite some areas of agreement, I do not agree fully with the majority opinion. Additionally, according to the majority, the outcome of this case is that Measure 47 now will be “codified and held in abeyance pending an appropriate constitutional amendment or judicial decision that will render it operative.” 352 Or at 470. Of *471those two options, a judicial decision addressing whether the Oregon Constitution precludes enactment of the limitations contained in Measure 47 seems more likely to occur. Because the majority dismisses the Hazell plaintiffs’ claims due to a…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. State Ex Rel. Huddleston v. SawyerOregon Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Brown v. Oregon State BarOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Vannatta v. KeislingOregon Supreme Court · 1997

6 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