Straube v. Myers (order)

Annotate this Case

MISCELLANEOUS SUPREME COURT DISPOSITIONS

 

BALLOT TITLES CERTIFIED

April 25, 2006

Butrick et al v. Myers (S53321). Petitioners' request for oral argument is denied. Petitioners' arguments that the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition No. 149 (2006) does not comply substantially with ORS 250.035(2) to (7) are not well taken. The court certifies to the Secretary of State the Attorney General's certified ballot title for the proposed measure.

Harris v. Myers (S53307); Brandis v. Myers (S53300). Petitioner Julie Brandis' request for oral argument is denied. Petitioner's arguments that the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition No. 144 (2006) does not comply substantially with ORS 250.035(2) to (7) are not well taken. The court certifies to the Secretary of State the Attorney General's certified ballot title for the proposed measure.

Harris v. Myers (S53308); Brandis v. Myers (S53310). Petitioner Julie Brandis' request for oral argument is denied. Petitioner's arguments that the Attorney General's certified ballot title for Initiative Petition No. 145 (2006) does not comply substantially with ORS 250.035(2) to (7) are not well taken. The court certifies to the Secretary of State the Attorney General's certified ballot title for the proposed measure.

Wilson v. Myers (S53330). Petitioner's request for oral argument is denied.

RECONSIDERATION DENIED AND MODIFIED BALLOT TITLE CERTIFIED

April 25, 2006

Straube et al v. Myers (S53266); McEvilly v. Myers (S53275). On April 19, 2006 and on April 20, 2006, petitioners filed petitions for reconsideration of this court's opinion of April 13, 2006. The court has considered the petitions and orders that they be denied. The court certifies to the Secretary of State the Attorney General's certified ballot title for initiative petition No. 143, as modified by the court in its opinion of April 13, 2006. ORS 250.085(8).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.