1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 287 P.3d
  5. 287 P.3d 1079 (2012)
 

HAZELL v. BROWN

(CC 06C22473; CA A137397; SC S059245 (Control), S059246).

287 P.3d 1079 (2012)

352 Or. 455

Bryn HAZELL, Francis Nelson, Tom Civiletti, David Delk, Gary Duell, Joan Horton, and Ken Lewis, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Respondents, Petitioners on Review, v. Kate BROWN, Secretary of State of the State of Oregon; and John R. Kroger, Attorney General of the State of Oregon, Defendants-Respondents Cross-Respondents, Respondents on Review, and Center to Protect Free Speech, Inc., an Oregon nonprofit corporation; and Fred Vannatta, Intervenors-Respondents Cross-Appellants, Respondents on Review.

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.

Decided October 4, 2012.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Daniel W. Meek , Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners on review Bryn Hazell, Francis Nelson, Tom Civiletti, David Delk, and Gary Duell. With him on the brief was Linda K. Williams . Linda K. Williams, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners on review Joan Horton and Ken Lewis. With her on the briefs was Daniel W. Meek .

John DiLorenzo , Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, argued the cause for respondents on review Center to Protect Free Speech and Fred Vannatta. With him on the brief were Gregory A. Chaimov , Aaron K. Stuckey , and Paul J. Southwick .

Michael A. Casper , Deputy Solicitor General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents on review State of Oregon and John R. Kroger , Attorney General. With him on the brief were John R. Kroger , Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce , Solicitor General.

P.K. Runkles-Pearson , Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae ACLU Foundation of Oregon.

DE MUNIZ, J.

This case requires us to examine the operative text of a voter-approved ballot measure that purported to depend for its efficacy upon the passage of a companion measure that voters rejected. The trial court concluded that the text at issue was severable from the ballot measure and ruled that the remaining provisions of the measure were, according to the plain text of the measure itself, dormant. The Court of...

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