Kerr v. Bradbury, CC 02C-21814.
| Decision Date | 03 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | CC 02C-21814.,SC S51503.,CA A121744. |
| Parties | Jeffrey B. KERR, Michael Kelley, and Jann Carson, Respondents on Review, v. Bill BRADBURY, Secretary of State for the State of Oregon, Petitioner on Review. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
No appearance contra.
DE MUNIZ, C.J.
Jeffrey B. Kerr, Michael Kelley, and Jann Carson (petitioners) seek reconsideration of this court's decision in Kerr v. Bradbury, 340 Or. 241, 131 P.3d 737 (2006). We allow their petition for reconsideration and adhere to our decision as issued.
The controversy that gave rise to this case involved a initiative petition approved by the Secretary of State for circulation and signature gathering. Petitioners contended that, as approved, the petition violated the "full text" provision of Article IV, section 1(2)(d),1 of the Oregon Constitution and brought an action against the Secretary of State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Secretary of State prevailed at trial, but, on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment. Shortly after that decision issued, the time limit for signature gathering expired without the initiative's sponsors submitting the necessary petition signatures to the Secretary of State's office. As a result, the initiative was not placed on the ballot for consideration by the voters. The Court of Appeals went on to award attorney fees to petitioners as the prevailing parties, and the Secretary of State sought review in this court.
Ultimately, we concluded that the case was no longer justiciable and dismissed the Secretary of State's petition for review as moot. Kerr, 340 Or. at 243, 131 P.3d 737. In the course of doing so, we were also called on to consider whether we should vacate the judgments below. As part of our explanation regarding why vacatur was unnecessary, we wrote:
Id. at 251, 131 P.3d 737 (emphasis added; omitted).
On reconsideration, petitioners ask us to "disavow" that holding and reaffirm the principle that responsible state officials not only will, but must, honor all declarations of law made by the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Priebe v. Nelson
...from her own failure to control the animal." (Wilcoxen v. Paige (1988) 174 Ill.App.3d 541, 124 Ill.Dec. 213, 528 N.E.2d 1104, 1106.) [140 P.3d 1131] Hence, a second public policy supportive of the veterinarian's rule is the common sense recognition that veterinarians, their trained assistan......
-
Multnomah Cnty. v. Mehrwein
...provisions will have no practical effect. See Kerr v. Bradbury , 340 Or. 241, 244, 131 P.3d 737, opinion adh’d to on recons. , 341 Or. 200, 140 P.3d 1131 (2006) (stating that case is moot when a decision will "no longer have some practical effect on the rights of the parties to the controve......
-
In re Complaint As To the Conduct of David E. Groom
...of Appeals vacate the trial court's decision, based on Kerr v. Bradbury, 340 Or. 241, 131 P.3d 737, adhered to on recons., 341 Or. 200, 140 P.3d 1131 (2006), City of Eugene v. State, PERB, 341 Or. 120, 137 P.3d 1288 (2006), PGE v. IBEW Local 125, 209 Or.App. 77, 146 P.3d 333 (2006), and Ari......
-
State v. Taylor
...v. Bradbury, 193 Or.App. 304, 323, 89 P.3d 1227 (2004), rev. dismissed as moot, 340 Or. 241, 131 P.3d 737, adh'd to on recons., 341 Or. 200, 140 P.3d 1131 (2006) (stating that “reasoning from silence in the legislative record is at best risky and, at worst, illogical”)). We have also cautio......