League of Oregon Cities v. State
Oregon Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDurham, J.
I write separately, because I do not agree with all the majority’s reasoning and conclusions. Specifically, the majority misconstrues ORS 246.910(1) in concluding that the trial court had no jurisdiction under that statute to consider the claims of the individual plaintiffs Audrey McCall, Hector MacPherson, and Michael E. Swaim in the McCall case, and Vera Katz and Bev Stein in the League of Oregon Cities case (hereinafter referred to collectively as “individual plaintiffs”). For the reasons set out below, ORS 246.910(1) supports the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hobbs v. McLeanSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- State Ex Rel. Huddleston v. SawyerOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- Sheets v. KnightOregon Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. ToevsOregon Supreme Court · 1998
- Anthony v. VeatchOregon Supreme Court · 1950
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.