 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Delashmutt v. Meyers12/9/1999
(Cases consolidated for argument and opinion)
En Banc
On petition to review ballot title.
Argued and submitted November 9, 1999.
Ballot title certified as modified. This decision shall become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).
These are two consolidated proceedings brought under ORS 250.085(2) to review the ballot title for a measure referred to the people by the 1999 Legislative Assembly. The referred measure, House Joint Resolution 2, would add a new section 34 to Article IV of the Oregon Constitution. The new section would provide:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the Legislative Assembly by law may impose limitations on the damages that may be recovered in civil actions."
Petitioners are electors who timely submitted written comments concerning the content of the Attorney General's draft ballot title and who therefore are entitled to seek review of the ballot title certified by the Attorney General. See ORS 250.085(2) (setting that requirement). The Attorney General's certified ballot title provides as follows:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: ALLOWS LEGISLATURE TO LIMIT RECOVERY OF DAMAGES IN CIVIL ACTIONS
"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote adds constitutional provision allowing legislature to limit recovery of damages in civil actions.
"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote retains restrictions on legislature's authority to limit recovery of damages in civil actions.
"SUMMARY: Amends Constitution. Under current judicial interpretation of the Oregon Constitution, there are restrictions on the legislature's authority to limit recovery of damages in civil actions. These restrictions include a prohibition barring the legislature from limiting recovery of non-economic damages in personal injury actions. This measure overrides those restrictions by adding a new constitutional provision expressly allowing the legislature to impose limits on damages that may be recovered in civil actions." We address the arguments made by each petition separately. Petitioners DeLashmutt, Gallant, and Oxley challenge only the "no" result statement and the summary of the Attorney General's ballot title. We have considered each of petitioners' arguments, but conclude that none establishes that the Attorney General's certified ballot title fails to comply with the standards for such ballot titles set out in ORS 250.035(2)(c) and (d) (1997). Accordingly, we turn to the arguments advanced by petitioner Love.
Petitioner Love challenges only the summary of the Attorney General's certified ballot title. The summary must be "a concise and impartial statement of not more than 85 words summarizing the measure and its major effect." ORS 250.035(2)(d) (1997). Petitioner Love asserts that the Attorney General's summary fails the foregoing test because it neither identifies adequately the state of current law nor describes adequately the breadth of the proposed measure.
Petitioner Love's first argument is premised on the idea (with which the Attorney General agrees) that the referred measure is a legislative response to Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or 62, 987 P2d 463 (1999). In Lakin, this court invalidated ORS 18.560(1), a statute that purported to place a $500,000 "cap" on awards of non-economic damages in personal injury cases, on the ground that the statute impermissibly interfered with the constitutional guarantee of a right to trial by jury found in Article I, section 17, of the Oregon Constitution. We accept that premise. From it, petitioner Love asserts that the second sentence of the Attorney General's summary should be modified by adding
Page 1 2 3 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|