Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

BRISTOW ET AL, Appellants, v. THORNTON ET AL, Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, being dissatisfied with the ballot title prepared by the attorney general for an initiative measure filed with the Secretary of State, have appealed.

Their argument on appeal is that the title as prepared violates the spirit of ORS 254.070.

We have carefully examined the ballot title prepared by the attorney general and are of the opinion that the title as prepared is in compliance with the statutes.

The attorney general's ballot title is affirmed.

McALLISTER, J., dissenting.

The caption of the ballot title prepared by the Attorney General reads as follows:

"RECREATIONAL — COMMERCIAL FISHERIES BILL"

The chief purpose of the measure is to restrict commercial fishing, and the caption should so state. This court has uniformly so held as to other measures designed to restrict or prohibit commercial fishing. See, Westerholm v. Thornton, 235 Or. 633, 386 P.2d 458 (1963); Columbia River Packers v. Thornton, 230 Or. 472, 371 P.2d 975 (1962); Columbia River Packers v. Thornton, 215 Or. 1, 325 P.2d 812 (1958); Allen v. Van Winkle, 136 Or. 173, 298 P. 241 (1931).

We should substitute for the caption submitted by the Attorney General the following:

"BILL TO RESTRICT COMMERCIAL FISHING".

The suggested caption is a more impartial statement of the purpose of the measure.

I dissent.

SLOAN, J., concurs in this dissent.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BRISTOW v. THORNTON
(Feb 28, 1968)