Marbet v. Keisling
Oregon Supreme Court
838 P.2d 580 (1992)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
While Oregon allowed ballot initiatives, the state also required the preparation of a financial-impact statement for each ballot initiative. The statement was to be prepared at least 100 days before the election on which the initiative was to appear. The secretary of state was to hold a hearing to receive suggested changes and, if desired, file revised estimates. Per statute, judicial review of estimates was very limited. Citizens alleging that the procedural requirements were not being met—for instance, the hearing was not held, or the estimate was not prepared—could petition for relief, and the court could mandate that the process begin anew. A group of voters including Lloyd Marbet (plaintiffs) sponsored a ballot initiative to close the Trojan nuclear power plant in Rainier, Oregon. Oregon Secretary of State Phil Keisling (defendant) ultimately prepared a financial-impact statement reflecting that no state government financial impact was expected. The statement noted that Columbia County property-tax revenues would be reduced by $1.6 million and that the state would have to replace those lost revenues. Marbet and his fellow initiative proponents debated these factual points and filed a petition seeking a writ to enjoin Keisling to comply with the financial-statement preparation requirements, complete an accurate statement, and not publish any unauthorized statements.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gillette, J.)
Dissent (Van Hoomissen, 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.