Davis v. Miller

424 P.2d 250, 246 Or. 102, 1967 Ore. LEXIS 551
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 23, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 424 P.2d 250 (Davis v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. Miller, 424 P.2d 250, 246 Or. 102, 1967 Ore. LEXIS 551 (Or. 1967).

Opinion

SLOAN, J.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered on the small amount of damages the jury awarded him in this action for injuries received in an automobile accident. The particular emphasis on this appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to allow a motion for a change of venue from Marion to Multnomah county. Plaintiff’s motion for a change of venue recited :

“[Defendant] School District No. 24 J, as is all other school districts in this state, is supported from a tax fund created by a taxation of all taxable property within Marion county. The jury selected in Marion county as in all other counties in this state are to be selected from those names contained on the latest tax roll and registration books of the county, or either of them, and thus any jury selected to try this case would of necessity be composed of primarily tax payers in this county. Any panel of jurors chosen to try this case, if chosen according to the provisions of law, would have an interest in the outcome of this action, and would therefore be disqualified to sit as jurors within the meaning of ORS 17.140 (4). • •

The motion was not directed at the possible prejudice of the taxpayers of defendant School District 24 J. It is limited to persons paying taxes to Marion county. Although the school district is within Marion county, its boundaries are not coterminous with the county.

At the start of the trial, before any prospective jurors were called, plaintiff renewed the motion by [104]*104asking the court “for a ruling on the question again.” He asked that he be “entitled to challenge any taxpayer, who might be called to serve as a juror, on the ground of implied bias * * The court refused the request. Both these rulings are assigned as error on this appeal.

During the voir dire examination of the prospective jurors, that followed the court’s preliminary ruling, plaintiff did not ask any of them if they were taxpayers of School District 24 J. He only inquired if they paid taxes to Marion county. Nothing more was asked. Thus the only record before us discloses prospective jurors who paid taxes to Marion county. We do not know what other taxes they may have paid or of any taxpayer prejudice a prospective juror may have felt. Our inquiry is directed at the state of the record.

It is true that ORS 328.005 requires the county to levy a tax of no more than $10 per each census child within the county to create a county school fund. This fund is apportioned among the various school districts within a county. The amount of money necessary to provide for this common school fund is the maximum amount that Marion county can levy for school purposes in the usual course of county taxation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Douglas County v. Sanders
655 P.2d 175 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
424 P.2d 250, 246 Or. 102, 1967 Ore. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-miller-or-1967.