Thornton v. Johnson

Decision Date16 May 1969
Citation253 Or. 342,454 P.2d 647
PartiesRobert Y. THORNTON, Respondent, v. Lee JOHNSON, Appellant.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Leo Levenson and Robert B. Duncan, Portland, for the motion.

PER CURIAM.

The contestant has moved for an order staying the issuance of the mandate of this court to enable him to apply for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. His motion does not state the grounds upon which he intends to base his application.

The United States Supreme Court can only grant a petition for writ of certiorari to this court if the Federal Constitution or a federal statute is in issue. Neither in the trial court nor in the initial brief or arguments in this court did the contestant base his cause upon the Federal Constitution or a federal statute. In his petition for rehearing contestant for the first time contends that his federal constitutional rights were violated. Contrary to the statement in the petition for rehearing, this court did not base any part of its decision upon the Constitution of the United States.

In State v. Buck, 239 Or. 577, 581, 398 P.2d 176, 399 P.2d 367 (1965), the party moving for a stay of our mandate also had not raised a constitutional issue until his petition for rehearing. We observed that the United States Supreme Court does not hear constitutional questions that are not timely raised in the state court. We denied the motion in State v. Buck, supra, 'for the reason that we do not 'deem it a reasonable possibility that a petition for certiorari would be granted.' Rowe v. Maine, Misc No. 342, 1960 Term, Aug. 25 1960 (Frankfurther, J.). Accord, Scott v. Platt, 171 Or. 379, 401, 135 P.2d 769, 137 P.2d 975 (1943).' 239 Or. at 582, 399 P.2d at 368. We consider that to be true in the instant case.

Motion denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • McAlmond v. Myers
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • August 4, 1972
    ...and analysis of Cook v. Corbett, Supra; Thornton v. Johnson, 253 Or. 342, 453 P.2d 178 (1969), motion to stay mandate denied, 253 Or. 364, 454 P.2d 647 (1969); Mosee v. Clark, 253 Or. 83, 453 P.2d 176 (1969); and Combs v. Groener, 256 Or. 336, 472 P.2d 281 (1970), involving the Oregon Corru......
  • Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. McBride
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • July 26, 1983
    ... ... With the same analysis we reached a different result in Thornton v. Johnson, 253 Or. 342, 347-48, 453 P.2d 178, 454 P.2d 647 (1969), we held that the Corrupt Practices Act is a penal statute because it deprives an ... ...
  • Zockert v. Fanning
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1990
    ... ... See Thornton v. Johnson, 253 Or. 342, 347-48, 453 P.2d 178, 454 P.2d 647 (1969) (a holding now codified at ORS 260.532(4)). Lawyer discipline, involving ... ...
  • Sadler v. Connolly
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1978
    ... ... Thomas v. Penfold, (1975), 23 Or.App. 168, 541 P.2d 1065; Putnam v. Milne, (1973), 13 Or.App. 540, 511 P.2d 442; Thornton v. Johnson, (1969), 253 Or. 342, 453 P.2d 178, 454 P.2d 647. The underlying basis for such a standard is that an election contest under the Act, if ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT