Goldstein v. Radakovich

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Goldstein v. Radakovich

674 P.2d 86, 66 Or. App. 500

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 9, 1984

DocketA8209-05754; CA A26279

StatusPublished

This text of 674 P.2d 86 (Goldstein v. Radakovich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldstein v. Radakovich, 674 P.2d 86, 66 Or. App. 500 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

At the direction of defendant Paulus, Secretary of State, defendant Radakovich, acting in his capacity as Director of Elections for Multnomah County, removed plaintiffs’ names from the list of candidates in the Multnomah County general election to be held on November 2, 1982. Plaintiffs filed a complaint, alleging that defendants acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and deprived them of their civil rights to campaign for office. Pursuant to ORS 246.910(1), plaintiffs’ also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking their reinstatement as candidates in the upcoming election. On October 7, 1982, a hearing was held before the trial court at which exhibits were received and testimony was given. The trial court orally denied plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. On October 28, 1982, it entered a judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ action with prejudice. Plaintiffs appeal; we dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal was served on defendants, on the judge who presided at trial and on the official court reporter. The notice of appeal was not served on the clerk of the trial court. ORS 19.023(2)(b) mandates that service be made on the “clerk of the trial court.” ORS 19.033(2) provides that the service and filing of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional. See Bauman v. Gittelsohn, 64 Or App 849, 669 P2d 1188, rev allowed, 296 Or 195 (1983).

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM

At the direction of defendant Paulus, Secretary of State, defendant Radakovich, acting in his capacity as Director of Elections for Multnomah County, removed plaintiffs’ names from the list of candidates in the Multnomah County general election to be held on November 2, 1982. Plaintiffs filed a complaint, alleging that defendants acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and deprived them of their civil rights to campaign for office. Pursuant to ORS 246.910(1), plaintiffs’ also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking their reinstatement as candidates in the upcoming election. On October 7, 1982, a hearing was held before the trial court at which exhibits were received and testimony was given. The trial court orally denied plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. On October 28, 1982, it entered a judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ action with prejudice. Plaintiffs appeal; we dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal was served on defendants, on the judge who presided at trial and on the official court reporter. The notice of appeal was not served on the clerk of the trial court. ORS 19.023(2)(b) mandates that service be made on the “clerk of the trial court.” ORS 19.033(2) provides that the service and filing of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional. See Bauman v. Gittelsohn, 64 Or App 849, 669 P2d 1188, rev allowed, 296 Or 195 (1983).

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

674 P.2d 86, 66 Or. App. 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-radakovich-orctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack