one-subject challenge in Oregon

2002The plaintiffs’ choice to contest the first exercise of the Secretary of State’s authority over the proposed initiative was correct procedurally, because, as the court stated, that decision was the first of “several discrete decisions” by the Secretary of State in the submission process, “any one of which may be challenged.” Id.

1990State ex rel Fidanque v. Paulus, 297 Or 711 , 688 P2d 1303 (1984) (over 60 days was laches in a mandamus case).

1998In a one-subject challenge to the body of an act, the purpose of that examination is to determine whether the legislature nonetheless has identified, and expressed in the title, such a unifying principle logically connecting all provisions in the act, thereby demonstrating that the act, in fact, `embrace[s] but one subject.'" Id. at 443-44 , 909 P.2d 846 (emphasis in original).

1998In a one-subject challenge to the body of an act, the purpose of that examination is to determine whether the legislature nonetheless has identified, and expressed in the title, such a unifying principle logically connecting all provisions in the act, thereby demonstrating that the act, in fact, `embrace[s] but one subject.'" Id. at 443-44 , 909 P.2d 846 (emphasis in original).

2002The plaintiffs' choice to contest the first exercise of the Secretary of State's authority over the proposed initiative was correct procedurally, because, as the court stated, that decision was the first of "several discrete decisions" by the Secretary of State in the submission process, "any one of which may be challenged." OEA, 301 Or. at 234, 721 P.2d 833 .

1998The concurrence suggests that, by contending that the title of SB 936 is not broad enough to connect all the provisions of law, defendant arguably raises a one-subject challenge to the title, not just the body. 154 Or App at 659 .

1998The concurrence alternatively argues, citing State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183 , 766 P2d 373 (1988), that we should address the validity of the title even if defendant does not. 154 Or App at 661-62 .

1998The concurrence alternatively argues, citing State v. Hitz, 307 Or. 183 , 766 P.2d 373 (1988), that we should address the validity of the title even if defendant does not. 154 Or.App. at 661-62, 963 P.2d at 695-96 (Edmonds, J., concurring).

1998The concurrence alternatively argues, citing State v. Hitz, 307 Or. 183 , 766 P.2d 373 (1988), that we should address the validity of the title even if defendant does not. 154 Or.App. at 661-62, 963 P.2d at 695-96 (Edmonds, J., concurring).

1996E.g., Nielson v. Bryson, 257 Or 179, 186-87 , 477 P2d 714 (1970); Adm. Vets.

1996E.g., Nielson v. Bryson, 257 Or 179, 186-87 , 477 P2d 714 (1970); Adm. Vets.

1996Nielson reiterates that “one of the principal objects was to ‘prevent the combining of incongruous matters and objects totally distinct and having no connection nor relation with each other in one and the same bill.’ ” 257 Or at 187 (quoting Miles et al v. Veatch et al, 189 Or 506, 528 , 220 P2d 511 , 221 P2d 905 (1950) (emphasis in Nielson deleted)).

1996Nielson reiterates that “one of the principal objects was to ‘prevent the combining of incongruous matters and objects totally distinct and having no connection nor relation with each other in one and the same bill.’ ” 257 Or at 187 (quoting Miles et al v. Veatch et al, 189 Or 506, 528 , 220 P2d 511 , 221 P2d 905 (1950) (emphasis in Nielson deleted)).

1986The opinion goes on to state that the court does not believe the Florida rule to be "an apt one." With respect to proposed amendments to the state constitution, Article XII, section 2(b), of the Missouri Constitution provides: "All amendments proposed by the general assembly or by the initiative shall be submitted to the electors for their approval or rejection by official ballot title as may be provided by law. * * * No such proposed amendment shall contain more than one amended and revised article of this constitution, or one new article which shall not contain more than one subject and matt

1986The opinion goes on to state that the court does not believe the Florida rule to be “an apt one.” With respect to proposed amendments to the state constitution, Article XII, section 2(b), of the Missouri Constitution provides: “All amendments proposed by the general assembly or by the initiative shall be submitted to the electors for their approval or rejection by official ballot title as may be provided by law. * * * No such proposed amendment shall contain more than one amended and revised article of this constitution, or one new article which shall not contain more than one subject and matt

1986In Ellis v. Roberts, 302 Or. 6 , 725 P.2d 886 (1986), this court held that a one-subject challenge under Article IV, section 1(2)(d) of the Oregon Constitution brought pursuant to ORS 246.910 must be made within 60 days of the date the Secretary of *930 State approves an initiative petition pursuant to ORS 250.065(2).

1986In Ellis v. Roberts, 302 Or. 6 , 725 P.2d 886 (1986), this court held that a one-subject challenge under Article IV, section 1(2)(d) of the Oregon Constitution brought pursuant to ORS 246.910 must be made within 60 days of the date the Secretary of *930 State approves an initiative petition pursuant to ORS 250.065(2).

1984See Johnson v. City of Astoria, 227 Or 585, 591 , 363 P2d 571 (1961); State Ex Rel v. Richardson, 48 Or 309, 319 , 85 P 225 (1906), applying Art IV, § 20 to an initiative.

1984See Johnson v. City of Astoria, 227 Or 585, 591 , 363 P2d 571 (1961); State Ex Rel v. Richardson, 48 Or 309, 319 , 85 P 225 (1906), applying Art IV, § 20 to an initiative.