Legal Opinion
Michael Caruso v. Yamhill County, an Oregon Municipal Corporation, by and Through Its County Commissioner, and State of Oregon, Intervenor-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 6, 2005No. 04-35155PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:
The State of Oregon appeals a district court order declaring Or.Rev.Stat. § 280.070(4)(a) unconstitutional and permanently limiting its enforcement. Section 280.070(4)(a) requires that ballots for initiatives proposing local option taxes include a statement: “This measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent.” The district court deemed this requirement constitutionally infirm, concluding that inclusion of the “three-percent warning” violated appellee Michael Caruso’s First Amendment rights as a petition circulator and his due process rights as a…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Spencer v. KemnaSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Powell v. McCormackSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Perry v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Dudum v. ArntzCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Emidio Soltysik v. Alex PadillaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- City of Cranston v. Rhode Island Laborers' District CouncilSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2008
- Doe v. ReedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.