explaining that “an ambiguous statement, or the possible erroneous inference to be drawn therefrom” does not constitute a violation of ORS 260.532
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “an ambiguous statement, or the possible erroneous inference to be drawn therefrom” does not constitute a violation of ORS 260.532
- discussing whether a political committee was an aggrieved party such that it had standing to bring the action
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LENT, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority and, for the most part, by far, the opinion. The majority opinion *206 speaks in terms of an “inference” of falsity. See, 296 Or at 202, 674 P2d at 1163 (1983). I do not believe that our reasons for the result reached should be couched in terms of inference. I join the majority because I understand the opinion to be saying that if the meaning of the challenged statement of the candidate can reasonably be interpreted to be something other than false, the statement is not cause for action under the statute.
I do not disagree with the separate opinion of Justice Linde, but I think the red flag is raised sufficiently by footnote 5 of the majority opinion.