Legal Opinion · Dissent

Crumpton v. Kulongoski

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 22, 1995No. SC S42252Published

1DissentDurham, J.

I dissent. The Attorney General’s ballot title, which the majority certifies to the Secretary of State, does not *272comply substantially with ORS 250.035(1),1 because it fails to state accurately the measure’s subject, chief purpose, and major effect. Accordingly, I would certify a different ballot title.

The proposed measure would amend the Oregon Constitution to provide:

“Any system or plan which provides pension or retirement benefits for employees of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision thereof shall comply with the following limitations:
“(1) The normal retirement age for any…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Reed v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Glerum v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Aughenbaugh v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Sampson v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Pacific Power & Light Co. v. PaulusOregon Supreme Court · 1982

2 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