Harris v. Keisling
Court of Appeals of Oregon
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
- Brumnett v. Psychiatric Security Review BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. MontezOregon Supreme Court · 1990
- Barcik v. KubiaczykOregon Supreme Court · 1995
- Aulenback, Inc. And Truckers United for Safety v. Federal Highway AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
- Barnes v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.