Legal Opinion

Armatta v. Kitzhaber

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 27, 1997No. 96C-14060; CA A96736PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*500LANDAU, P. J.

Defendants move for a stay pending appeal of the injunction entered as part of the judgment in this case. The judgment enjoins defendants from “enforcing or attempting to enforce section 2 of [1996] Ballot Measure 40” (Section 2). We allow the motion.

On November 5, 1996, the voters enacted Ballot Measure 40, amending the Oregon Constitution to add, among other things, the following provision, denominated as Section 2:

“The rights conferred on victims by this section shall be limited only to the extent required by the United States Constitution; Section 9, Article I and Section 12,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cornelius v. City of AshlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
  2. Blair v. BlairOregon Supreme Court · 1953
  3. State Ex Rel. McKinley Automotive, Inc. v. OldhamOregon Supreme Court · 1978

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Armatta v. KitzhaberOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Northwestern Title Loans, LLC v. Division of Finance & Corporate SecuritiesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  3. Armatta v. KitzhaberCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  4. Armatta v. KitzhaberOregon Supreme Court · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API