Meyer v. Bradbury
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtRosenblum, J.
Plaintiffs brought this action seeking to enjoin defendant Secretary of State from placing a proposed initiative, Initiative Petition (IP) 8, on the November 2006 ballot on the ground that it violates the separate-vote requirement found in Article XVII, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court concluded that IP 8 did not propose more than one substantive change to the constitution, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and granted defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs appeal, assigning error to those rulings. In response, defendants raise several arguments as to why the trial…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Priest v. PearceOregon Supreme Court · 1992
- Application of Portland General Elec. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1977
- Armatta v. KitzhaberOregon Supreme Court · 1998
- League of Oregon Cities v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 2002
- Oregon Medical Ass'n v. RawlsOregon Supreme Court · 1978
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Californians for an Open Primary v. McPhersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Meyer v. BradburyOregon Supreme Court · 2006
- Californians for an Open Primary v. McPhersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Bowers v. BetschartCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
- Meyer v. BradburyOregon Supreme Court · 2006