Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Novick/Crew v. Myers

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 18, 2004No. SC S51686 (Control); S51690Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRiggs, J.

I concur with the majority’s rejection of the arguments for modification submitted by petitioner Crew. As to the majority’s rejection of petitioner Novick’s arguments, I respectfully dissent. Contrary to the view expressed in the majority opinion with respect to the Novick petition, *581the result statements do not comply substantially with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(b) and (c). Both the Attorney General and the majority tiptoe by and otherwise ignore the elephant in the living room. Nor do I believe that their reasoning comports with this court’s holding in Novick v. Myers, 330 Or 351, 7…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Novick v. MyersOregon Supreme Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API