Legal Opinion
Boytano v. Fritz
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided August 24, 1995No. CC 93-500CV; CA A80515; SC S41923PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGraber, J.
Plaintiff Boytano seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, requesting that defendant Fritz, the elections officer of the City of Klamath Falls, be prevented from placing a proposed, but not yet qualified, initiative measure on the ballot. The trial court refused to grant the requested relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Boytano v. Fritz, 128 Or App 109, 875 P2d 476, withdrawn on recons, 131 Or App 466, 480, 886 P2d 31 (1994). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 25, 1993, a prospective petition for a proposed amendment to the Klamath Falls…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. HitzOregon Supreme Court · 1988
- City of La Grande v. Public Employes Retirement BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- City of La Grande v. Public Employes Retirement BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Zockert v. FanningOregon Supreme Court · 1990
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- M. S. v. Kate BrownCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
- Ainsworth v. SAIF Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- State v. LogsdonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
- GTE Northwest Inc. v. Oregon Public Utility CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.