LEE v. STATE OF OR.

Nos. 95-35804, 95-35805, 95-35854, 95-35948 and 95-35949.

107 F.3d 1382 (1997)

Gary LEE, M.D., individually and on behalf of his patients; William Petty, M.D., individually and on behalf of his patients; Eric Dutson, individually and as co-representative of a class of persons who have the disability of a terminal disease even with medical treatment; Janice Elsner, individually and as co-representative of a class of persons who have the disability of a terminal disease even with medical treatment; Claudine Stotler, individually and as a representative of a sub-class of person who has the disability of a terminal disease even with medical treatment and who are being, or will be treated at the Oregon Health Sciences University Hospital; Jeffrey M. Weinkauf, individually and as a representative of a class of Oregon patients who have a possibly terminal disease absent medical treatment; Fritz Beck; June Beck; The Willows Home, Inc.; Sister Geraldine Bernards, individually and as Administrator of Maryville Nursing Home, Inc.; and Maryville Nursing Home, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. STATE OF OREGON; Douglas F. Harcleroad, in his official capacity as the District Attorney for Lane County, Oregon, and as a representative of the class of all district attorneys in the State of Oregon; John Kitzhaber, in his official capacity as Governor of Oregon; Terry L. Connor, D.O., in his official capacity as Chairman of the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners; Edward A. Heusch, D.O., in his official capacity as Vice-chairman of the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners; Catherine M. Nater, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners; John W. Grigsby, M.D., in his official capacity as a member of the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners; Sarah S. Hendrickson, M.D., in her official capacity as a member of the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners; George A. Porter, M.D., in his official capacity as a member of the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners; James H. Sampson, M.D., in his official capacity as a member of the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners; Rosemary C. Lee Selinger, M.D., in her official capacity as a member of the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners; Fred R. Stark, M.D., in his official capacity as a member of the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners; Maralyn E. Turner, in her official capacity as a member of the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners; J. Bruce Williams, M.D., in his official capacity as a member of the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners; Peter Kohler, in his official capacity as the President of the Oregon Health Sciences University; Lee Swanson, Jr., Herbert Aschkenasy, Robert L.R. Bailey, Diane Christopher, Bobby Lee, Walter R. Miller, Esther Puentes, George E. Richardson, Jr., Ronda L. Trotman Reese, Jim Willis, and Janice J. Wilson, in their official capacities as members of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education; and Oregon Health Sciences University Hospital, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, and Peter Goodwin; Barbara Coombs Lee; Elven Sinnard; Michael Vernon; Ted Levin; and Tim Schuck, Intervenors-Appellees-Cross-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Decided February 27, 1997.

As Amended March 21 and April 16, 1997.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Thomas O. Alderman, Eugene, Oregon; James Bopp, Jr., Richard E. Coleson, Bopp, Coleson and Bostrom, Terre Haute, IN, for the plaintiffs-appellees-cross-appellants.

Eli Stutsman, Portland, OR; Charles F. Hinkle, Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones & Grey, Portland, OR; Thomas M. Christ, ACLU Foundation of Oregon, Inc., Portland, OR, for the intervenors-appellees-cross-appellees.

Thomas A. Balmer, Deputy Attorney General, Salem, OR, for the defendants-appellants-cross-appellees.

Before: GOODWIN and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge.


BRUNETTI, Circuit Judge:

The plaintiffs in this case are doctors, patients, and residential care facilities challenging the facial validity of the State of Oregon's Death With Dignity Act. Plaintiffs contend the Act violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as several federal statutes. The district court found the Act to violate the Equal Protection Clause and permanently enjoined its enforcement. Because the federal courts...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases