250.131 Court
review of procedures under which estimates and statements of financial impact
of state measure were prepared.
(1) Any person alleging that an estimate or statement described in ORS 250.125
was prepared, filed or certified in violation of the procedures specified in
ORS 250.125 or 250.127 may petition the Supreme Court seeking that the required
procedures be followed and stating the reasons the estimate or statement filed
with the court does not satisfy the required procedures. A petition is not
allowed concerning the contents of the estimate or statement or whether an
estimate or statement should be prepared.
(2) If the
petition is filed not later than the 85th day before the election at which the
measure is to be voted upon, the court shall review the procedures under which
the estimate or statement was prepared, filed and certified, hear arguments and
determine whether the procedures required under ORS 250.125 and 250.127 were
satisfied. The review by the Supreme Court shall be conducted expeditiously to
ensure the orderly and timely conduct of the election at which the measure is
to be submitted to the electors.
(3) If the court
determines that the procedures described in ORS 250.125 and 250.127 were not
satisfied, the court shall order the preparation of a second estimate or
statement, to be prepared, filed and certified as provided in ORS 250.125 and
250.127 except that:
(a) The financial
estimate committee created under ORS 250.125 shall prepare and file with the
Secretary of State an estimate or statement not later than two days following
the decision of the court;
(b) A hearing
shall be held within two days after the estimate or statement is filed; and
(c) An estimate
or statement shall be certified not later than seven days after the decision of
the court. The procedures under which the second estimate or statement is filed
and certified may not be appealed. [1991 c.971 §4; 2005 c.633 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Marbet v. Keisling, 838 P.2d 580 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 42× “Petitioners, who are the chief sponsors of 1992 Ballot Measure 5 (a measure that would close the Trojan nuclear power plant at Rainier, Oregon), brought this original proceeding in this court pursuant to ORS 250.131, set out post. Petitioners challenge the estimate of financial…”
State Ex Rel. Keisling v. Norblad, 860 P.2d 241 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 2× “That same section further expressly mandates that ORS 250.131, providing for judicial review of a financial impact estimate, "shall not apply.”
McCormick v. Brown, 333 P.3d 992 (Or. 2014).
· cites it 4× “1 ORS 250.131 provides, in part: “(1) Any person alleging that an estimate or statement described in ORS 250.”
State ex rel. Marbet v. Keisling, 838 P.2d 585 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 3× “Keisling, 314 Or 223 , 838 P2d 580 (1992) (holding that the petitioners’ challenges to the financial impact estimate certified by respondents were addressed to the substance of the estimate, not to the procedures by which the estimate was reached, and therefore the challenges…”
Homuth v. Keisling, 838 P.2d 587 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 3× “PER CURIAM Petitioner brings an original proceeding in this court pursuant to ORS 250.131, 1 seeking review of the Estimate of Financial Impact for 1992 Ballot Measure 4, to be included in the Voters’ Pamphlet and on the ballot for the next general election.”
Unger v. Rosenblum (Or. 2017).
“ORS 250.131(2). Cite as 362 Or 210 (2017) 217 comply with the constitutional procedural requirements of Article XVII, section 1.”
Unger v. Rosenblum (Or. 2017).
“ORS 250.131(2). Cite as 362 Or 210 (2017) 217 comply with the constitutional procedural requirements of Article XVII, section 1.”
Brummell v. Kulongoski, 921 P.2d 1310 (Or. 1996).
· cites it 2× “ORS 250.131(1). We have considered each of petitioners’ procedural challenges to the financial impact estimate.”
Wilson v. Keisling, 838 P.2d 588 (Or. 1992).
“PER CURIAM Petitioners, who are the chief sponsors of 1992 Ballot Measure 6 (a measure that would close the Trojan nuclear power plant at Rainier, Oregon), seek judicial review under ORS 250.131 of the estimate of financial impact of the measure that was prepared by the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.131(1) — 4 cases
Marbet v. Keisling, 838 P.2d 580 (Or. 1992).
“Petitioners, who are the chief sponsors of 1992 Ballot Measure 5 (a measure that would close the Trojan nuclear power plant at Rainier, Oregon), brought this original proceeding in this court pursuant to ORS 250.131, set out post. Petitioners challenge the estimate of financial…”
McCormick v. Brown, 333 P.3d 992 (Or. 2014).
“1 ORS 250.131 provides, in part: “(1) Any person alleging that an estimate or statement described in ORS 250.”
Homuth v. Keisling, 838 P.2d 587 (Or. 1992).
“PER CURIAM Petitioner brings an original proceeding in this court pursuant to ORS 250.131, 1 seeking review of the Estimate of Financial Impact for 1992 Ballot Measure 4, to be included in the Voters’ Pamphlet and on the ballot for the next general election.”
Brummell v. Kulongoski, 921 P.2d 1310 (Or. 1996).
“ORS 250.131(1). We have considered each of petitioners’ procedural challenges to the financial impact estimate.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.131(2) — 5 cases
Marbet v. Keisling, 838 P.2d 580 (Or. 1992).
“Petitioners, who are the chief sponsors of 1992 Ballot Measure 5 (a measure that would close the Trojan nuclear power plant at Rainier, Oregon), brought this original proceeding in this court pursuant to ORS 250.131, set out post. Petitioners challenge the estimate of financial…”
State ex rel. Marbet v. Keisling, 838 P.2d 585 (Or. 1992).
“Keisling, 314 Or 223 , 838 P2d 580 (1992) (holding that the petitioners’ challenges to the financial impact estimate certified by respondents were addressed to the substance of the estimate, not to the procedures by which the estimate was reached, and therefore the challenges…”
Unger v. Rosenblum (Or. 2017).
“ORS 250.131(2). Cite as 362 Or 210 (2017) 217 comply with the constitutional procedural requirements of Article XVII, section 1.”
Unger v. Rosenblum (Or. 2017).
“ORS 250.131(2). Cite as 362 Or 210 (2017) 217 comply with the constitutional procedural requirements of Article XVII, section 1.”
Brummell v. Kulongoski, 921 P.2d 1310 (Or. 1996).
“ORS 250.131(1). We have considered each of petitioners’ procedural challenges to the financial impact estimate.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.131(3) — 1 case
McCormick v. Brown, 333 P.3d 992 (Or. 2014).
“1 ORS 250.131 provides, in part: “(1) Any person alleging that an estimate or statement described in ORS 250.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.131(3)(c) — 1 case
Marbet v. Keisling, 838 P.2d 580 (Or. 1992).
“Petitioners, who are the chief sponsors of 1992 Ballot Measure 5 (a measure that would close the Trojan nuclear power plant at Rainier, Oregon), brought this original proceeding in this court pursuant to ORS 250.131, set out post. Petitioners challenge the estimate of financial…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.