|January 17, 2002|
|Case decided January 17, 2002|
Lon Mabon et al. v. Hardy Myers, (SC S48950) (control); (S48951)
On petitions to review ballot title. Ballot title referred to the Attorney General for modification. Opinion of the Court by Justice Susan M. Leeson. Chief Justice Wallace P. Carson and Justice Robert D. Durham did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Today, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the ballot title certified by the Attorney General for a proposed initiative measure (Initiative Petition 107 (2002)), which would amend the Oregon Constitution by requiring judges to take a new oath committing them to the framers' intent regarding the Oregon and federal constitutions and to the legislature's intent regarding statutes, did not comply with statutory requirements. The Court referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.
Petitioner Lon Mabon challenged the caption, the "yes" and "no" vote result statements, and the summary of the Attorney General's certified ballot title on the ground that they failed to comply substantially with statutory requirements. The Court concluded that none of those challenges was well-taken.
Petitioner Roy Pulvers also challenged all three parts of the certified ballot title. The Court agreed that the caption failed to identify reasonably the subject matter of the proposed measure, as required by ORS 250.035(2)(a), because it gave no indication that the proposed measure would create a new oath replacing or subsuming existing judicial oaths or that the new oath would commit judges to the framers' intent regarding constitutional law. The Court also concluded that the Attorney General must make corresponding changes to the "yes" and "no" vote result statements. Finally, the Court concluded that the Attorney General must correct a reference to "common law" in the summary, which the Attorney General had acknowledged was an error.
* * * * * * * * * *
On December 27, 2001, the Supreme Court:
1. Denied a petition for writ of mandamus in:
McVey v. McVey, S49123
2. Suspended Salem attorney Philip J. Groh from the practice of law pending disciplinary proceedings.
On December 31, 2001, the Supreme Court:
1. Certified a modified ballot title in:
Kain v. Myers, S48796
On January 7, 2002, the Supreme Court:
1. Certified a modified ballot title in:
Novick v. Myers, S48765
2. Denied a petition for writ of mandamus in:
Oregon Housing and Community Services v. Meziere, S49160
On January 15, 2002, the Supreme Court:
1. Allowed the petition for review in*:
State v. Perry, S48330, A102784. Defendant seeks review of a Court of Appeals' decision affirming a circuit court judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.
Defendant worked in a convenience store in a high-crime area of Portland. On the evening of January 11, 1998, police came to the store as a result of a complaint about a firearm. On arriving, one of the officers asked defendant if he had a gun. Defendant said that he had a pistol in a holster behind him, and turned the handgun over to the officer without incident.
Defendant was charged, among other things, with vio-lating ORS 166.250(1)(a), which prohibits carrying a concealed firearm without a license. Defendant subsequently was convicted on the charge.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. ORS 166.250(2)(b) provides that the section does not prohibit "[a]ny citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years" who meets certain requirements "from owning, possessing or keeping within the person's * * * place of business any handgun, and no permit or li-cense to * * * possess any such firearm at the person's * * * place of business is required of any such citizen." The Court of Appeals concluded that "place of business" did not include the work site of a non-owner employee. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reported at 165 Or App 342, 996 P2d 995 (2000).
On review, the issue is whether a lone employee staff-ing a convenience store is at the person's "place of business" under ORS 166.250(2)(b) and so is not prohibited from possessing a concealed firearm by ORS 166.250(1)(a).
2. Denied petitions for review in:
Davis v. Lampert, S48704, A108266
Keller v. SAIF, S48734, A109170
State v. Perez, S48749, A110574
State v. Jordan, S48759, A111198
Pedro v. Hoyt, S48762, A108954
State v. McKinney, S48801, A105349
Williams v. Palmateer, S48803, A108472
Walsh v. Lampert, S48825, A111636
Morrow County Health Dist. v. Account Control Consul-tant Enterprises, Inc., S48853, A105718
State v. Acker, S48883, A105629
State v. Harvey, S48897, A104908
Goodwin v. Wilhelm, S48898, A110258
State v. McCoy, S48911, A108066
Edgemon and Edgemon, S48913, A102813
State v. Howley, S48927, A105030
State v. Barrett, S48933, A108251
Sain v. Palmateer, S48948, A111817
Stewart v. Thompson, S48956, A108267
Determann v. Baldwin, S48957, A102764
State v. Chew, S48958, A109846
State v. Reser, S48959, A108550
Allen v. Lampert, S48961, A110594
State v. Lenex, S48963, A109403
Dam v. Lampert, S48969, A109258
Picray v. Summers, S48975, A103685
State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Taylor, S48993, A113843
State v. Zenuhin, S49003, A110843
Camp v. Zenners Meat, Inc., S49004, A113007
State v. Sherman, S49005, A106979
State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Coos County v. Bramhall, S49015, A110256
State v. Young, S49016, A109799
State v. Kadderly, S49017, A101010
State ex rel Moran v. Rushman, S49018, A109916
Wilson v. Hill, S49031, A113842
State v. Perez, S49040, A110743
State v. Dulaney, S49057, A111749
State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Ward, S49064, A110860
State v. Green, S49072, A110571
Elliott v. Hill, S49074, A112958
State v. Dauphine, S49075, A106422
3. Denied petitions for reconsideration in:
Hemstreet v. Van, Inc., S48877 (Order denying petition for writ of mandamus issued November 7, 2001)
Rivera v. Stringer, S49030 (Order denying petition for writ of mandamus issued December 4, 2001)
Rivera v. Stringer, S49044 (Order denying petition for writ of mandamus issued December 11, 2001)
Rivera v. Wilson, S49053 (Order denying petition for writ of mandamus issued December 11, 2001)
Rivera v. Wilson, S49077 (Order denying petition for writ of mandamus issued December 18, 2001)
Dept. of Revenue v. Glass, S47572 (Opinion issued November 16, 2001)
Hozan v. Danner Shoe Mfg., Inc., S48973, A112659 (Order denying petition for review issued December 11, 2001)
4. Denied petitions for writ of mandamus in:
G.A.S.P. v. Environmental Quality Commission, S49027
Brown v. Hill, S49091
State ex rel Ingraham v. State, S49107
State v. Wilson, S49109
*These summaries of cases in which the Supreme Court has allowed review are prepared for the benefit of members of the media to assist them in reporting the court's activities to the public. Parties and practitioners should not rely on the summaries, or the statement of issues to be decided in the summaries, as indicating the questions that the Supreme Court will consider on review. Regarding the questions that the Supreme Court may consider on review, see Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
END OF DOCUMENT