Legal Opinion

Leo v. Keisling

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided August 5, 1999No. CC 98C-17232; CA A103357; SC S45677PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDurham, J.

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ petition for attorney fees and costs. Plaintiffs do not seek an award of attorney fees against intervenors. The procedural history of the case and the court’s decision on the merits appear in Leo v. Keisling, 327 Or 556, 964 P2d 1023 (1998). We allow costs in the sum of $246.50 and deny the petition for attorney fees.

In their complaint, plaintiffs challenged the Secretary of State’s determination that a proposed initiative measure qualified for placement on the ballot. Plaintiffs asserted that the Secretary of State’s action violated OAR…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Department of Human ResourcesOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Deras v. MyersOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Armatta v. KitzhaberOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Vannatta v. KeislingOregon Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Gilbert v. Hoisting & Portable Engineers, Local Union No. 701Oregon Supreme Court · 1964

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Moro v. State of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  3. Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  4. Moro v. State of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 2016
  5. Moro v. State of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API