Harris v. Keisling

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Harris v. Keisling

20 P.3d 864, 173 Or. App. 163, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 327

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 14, 2001

Docket98C-19263; CA A105892

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 P.3d 864 (Harris v. Keisling) 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

Harris v. Keisling, 20 P.3d 864, 173 Or. App. 163, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 327 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant Secretary of State in a case involving a state constitutional challenge to an initiative measure. Plaintiffs assign error to the trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which was based on the court’s conclusion that plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge was foreclosed by Schnell v. Appling, 238 Or 202, 395 P2d 113 (1964). After we heard arguments in the case, a majority of Oregon electors voted against the measure at the November 2000 general election. Defendant then moved to dismiss the case as moot. Plaintiffs oppose dismissal on the ground that the case fits into the exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that are capable of repetition yet evading review. Because we have previously concluded that that exception is not available in Oregon, see, e.g., Barnes v. Thompson, 159 Or App 383, 388, 977 P2d 431, rev den 329 Or 447 (1999), we grant defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ appeal as moot.

Appeal dismissed as moot; judgment vacated with instructions to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of a jus-ticiable controversy.

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

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant Secretary of State in a case involving a state constitutional challenge to an initiative measure. Plaintiffs assign error to the trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which was based on the court’s conclusion that plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge was foreclosed by Schnell v. Appling, 238 Or 202, 395 P2d 113 (1964). After we heard arguments in the case, a majority of Oregon electors voted against the measure at the November 2000 general election. Defendant then moved to dismiss the case as moot. Plaintiffs oppose dismissal on the ground that the case fits into the exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that are capable of repetition yet evading review. Because we have previously concluded that that exception is not available in Oregon, see, e.g., Barnes v. Thompson, 159 Or App 383, 388, 977 P2d 431, rev den 329 Or 447 (1999), we grant defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ appeal as moot.

Appeal dismissed as moot; judgment vacated with instructions to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of a jus-ticiable controversy.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 P.3d 864, 173 Or. App. 163, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-keisling-orctapp-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack