Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McCormick v. Brown

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc

August 19, 2014

Pat McCORMICK and Scott Dahlman, Petitioners,
v.
Kate BROWN, Secretary of State; Ted Wheeler, State Treasurer; Michael Jordan, Director, Department of Administrative Services; James Bucholz, Director, Department of Revenue; and Debra Guzman, Local Representative, Respondents

On petition to review estimate of financial impact filed August 11, 2014; considered and under advisement August 15, 2014.

John DiLorenzo, Jr., Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, filed the petition and responses for petitioners.

Matthew J. Lysne, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the answering memorandum and responses for respondents. With him on the memorandum and responses were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General.

OPINION

Page 993

[356 Or. 2] PER CURIAM

This matter is before the Court on a petition to review an estimate of financial impact statement for Ballot Measure 92 (2014) (requiring food manufacturers and retailers to label " genetically engineered" foods as such). Petitioners Pat McCormick and Scott Dahlman contend that the estimate was prepared without complying with the necessary procedures. Respondents, members of the financial estimate committee created under ORS 250.125, have responded and concede that the procedures were not followed. Accordingly, we direct the preparation of a second estimate.

Pursuant to ORS 250.131(1), this court has jurisdiction of petitions that assert that an estimate of financial impact was not prepared in accordance with statutory procedures.[1] Petitioners here assert that the financial estimate committee did not consult with the Legislative Revenue Officer regarding indirect costs of the measure, as is required by statute. See ORS 250.125(4).[2] Respondents agree that the financial estimate committee did not consult the Legislative Revenue Officer regarding indirect costs.

In light of respondents' concession, we conclude that the procedures required under ORS 250.125 and ORS 250.127 [356 Or. 3] were not satisfied. Accordingly, we order that a second estimate be prepared, filed, and certified in accordance with the relevant statutes. See ORS 250.131(3).[3]

Second estimate of financial impact to be prepared, filed, and certified. Appellate judgment to issue forthwith.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.