# Committee of One Thousand to Re-Elect State Senator Brown v. Eivers

> Oregon Supreme Court · December 28, 1983 · 296 Or. 195

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582041

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMITTEE OF ONE THOUSAND TO RE-ELECT STATE SENATOR WALT BROWN, Petitioner on Review, v. EIVERS, Respondent on Review
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 28, 1983
- **Citations:** 296 Or. 195; 674 P.2d 1159
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lent
- **Judges:** Peterson, Lent, Linde
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582041

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582041. Public record. Not legal advice.