Kadderly v. City of Portland
Oregon Supreme Court
74 P. 710, 44 Or. 118 (1903)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Oregon voters approved a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to allow the use of ballot initiative and referendum powers to voters. Meanwhile, the Oregon legislature adopted a new charter for the City of Portland (the city) (defendant). The legislative act indicated that the charter would go into effect immediately on approval by the governor because the charter was necessary to preserve public safety, peace, or health. Accordingly, the governor approved the charter, and the city levied assessments for street improvements under the city’s newly given powers. A. A. Kadderly (plaintiff) was a taxpayer who objected to the new assessments and argued that the legislative act allowing initiative and referendum powers also required a 90-day waiting period from enacting a new statute. Kadderly filed suit against the city, seeking an injunction based on the argument that the initiative and referendum power was not regularly proposed in the legislature and that the new amendment violated the Guaranty Clause (§ 4, Article 4) of the federal Constitution, which guaranteed each state a republican form of government. The city countered by arguing that the referendum and initiative-power amendment was not yet a part of the state constitution and that, even if the amendment was, the amendment was valid because of the legislature’s indication that the law was needed for the immediate preservation of public safety, peace, or health. At the trial court level, a ruling was entered for the city, dismissing the suit. Kadderly appealed the ruling.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bean, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.