Legal Opinion

Mannix v. Kulongoski

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 1996No. SC S42595, S42596 and S42572PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*488GILLETTE, J.

These are three original proceedings, consolidated for argument and opinion, in which three separate petitioners or groups of petitioners challenge the ballot title for SJR 41, which was referred to the voters by the legislature. Each petitioner is an elector who, in a timely manner, submitted written comments about the Attorney General’s draft ballot title, pursuant to ORS 250.067(1). Accordingly, each is entitled to seek a different title in this court. ORS 250.085(2). We have considered each of petitioners’ arguments concerning the Attorney General’s ballot title. We conclude…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. HenryOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  2. City of Portland v. TidymanOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Mannix v. KeislingOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Arenz v. KeislingOregon Supreme Court · 1993

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Carlson v. MyersOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Carson v. MyersOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Carlson v. MyersOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Mannix v. KulongoskiOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Sizemore v. MyersOregon Supreme Court · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API