Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Oregon opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Armatta v. Kitzhabergreen2 sentences2024(Id.) Armatta indeed set out the test for the separate vote requirement as whether a measure, if adopted, “would make two or more changes to the constitution that are substantive and that are not closely related.” Armatta, 327 Or at 277 .12 Plaintiff skips the text of the initiative, the changes it made to the constitution, and their degree of relatedness, and instead vaguely observes that “[t]he two subjects [old property and new property] were related nominally, but old property owners were excluded from the new property class.” (Ptf’s Sec Am Compl at 19.) Plaintiff’s discussion of classes i 2006Moreover, it appears that the Armatta court, in summarizing the final principle that it drew from Baum, i.e., “a single amendment must contain a single ‘subject!,]’ ” 327 Or at 269 , modified the statement in Baum that “[a]t most [the separate vote requirement] prohibits the submission of two amendments on two different subjects in such manner as to make it impossible for the voters to express their will as to each.” Baum, 200 Or at 581 . | 1 | 7 |
Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhabergreen2 sentences2024See Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhaber, 341 Or 496 , 145 P3d 151 (2006) (a majority concluded that two parts of a ballot measure were closely related sufficient to avoid separate votes, but only a plurality agreed on the appropriate reasoning for what constitutes two amendments being closely related). 2024See Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhaber, 341 Or 496 , 145 P3d 151 (2006) (a majority concluded that two parts of a ballot measure were closely related sufficient to avoid separate votes, but only a plurality agreed on the appropriate reasoning for what constitutes two amendments being closely related). | 1 | 1 |
Priest v. Pearcegreen2 sentences1998See Priest, 314 Or. at 418 , 840 P.2d 65 (suggesting that a decision from Indiana courts interpreting a provision of the Indiana Constitution subsequently incorporated in the Oregon Constitution would be instructive in interpreting the Oregon provision). 1998See Priest, 314 Or. at 418 , 840 P.2d 65 (suggesting that a decision from Indiana courts interpreting a provision of the Indiana Constitution subsequently incorporated in the Oregon Constitution would be instructive in interpreting the Oregon provision). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lehman v. Bradbury
green
1 sentence2012Rather, those changes were necessary to imposition of death as a penalty for aggravated murder in this state. *525 As articulated in the passage from Lehman, 333 Or at 246 , quoted above, the next step in the separate vote analysis would require that we consider whether the constitutional provisions that Measure 6 affects are closely related. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Baum v. NEWBRY
green
2 sentences2006Armatta the court observed that, in Baum v. Newbry et al., 200 Or 576, 581 , 276 P2d 220 (1954), the court had stated: “[The separate vote requirement] does not prohibit the people from adopting an amendment which would affect more than one article or section by implication. * * * At most it prohibits the submission of two amendments on two different subjects in such manner as to make it impossible for the voters to express their will as to each. 2006Moreover, it appears that the Armatta court, in summarizing the final principle that it drew from Baum, i.e., “a single amendment must contain a single ‘subject!,]’ ” 327 Or at 269 , modified the statement in Baum that “[a]t most [the separate vote requirement] prohibits the submission of two amendments on two different subjects in such manner as to make it impossible for the voters to express their will as to each.” Baum, 200 Or at 581 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.