Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Harris v. Keisling

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 14, 2001No. 98C-19263; CA A105892Published

1ConcurrenceArmstrong, J.

I concur in the decision to dismiss plaintiffs’ appeal as moot. I write separately, however, to explain my reasons for joining in that disposition of plaintiffs’ appeal.

Plaintiffs challenged defendant’s certification of Ballot Measure 9 for the November 2000 election. They argued that the initiative petition violated Article IV, section l(2)(d), of the Oregon Constitution, which requires “[a]n initiative petition [to] * * * include the full text of the proposed law or amendment to the Constitution.” The initiative petition for Ballot Measure 9 stated that the initiative would amend ORS…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Brumnett v. Psychiatric Security Review BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. MontezOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Barcik v. KubiaczykOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Aulenback, Inc. And Truckers United for Safety v. Federal Highway AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
  5. Barnes v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999

3 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