# Greene v. Kulongoski

> Oregon Supreme Court · October 12, 1995 · 322 Or. 169

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790763

## Case

- **Full name:** Mary Celene GREENE, Petitioner, v. Theodore R. KULONGOSKI, Attorney General of the State of Oregon, Respondent
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 12, 1995
- **Citations:** 322 Or. 169; 903 P.2d 366; 1995 Ore. LEXIS 120
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Unis
- **Judges:** Carson, Van Hoomissen, Fadeley, Unis, Graber, Durham
- **Cited by:** 29 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/9790763

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a caption with three negative terms close together was confusing and did not comply substantially with statutory requirements
- explaining that cap- tion may not obscure measure’s effect or make it difficult for voters to understand measure’s subject
- explaining that caption may not obscure measure’s effect or make it difficult for voters to understand measure’s subject

## Opinion text

UNIS, J.,
dissenting.
I adhere to my view that, to the extent that ORS 250.085(5) (1993) gives this court jurisdiction to draft and certify a ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that is different than the one certified by the Attorney General, that statute violates the principle of separation of powers embodied in Article III, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution. *180 Rooney v. Kulongoski (Elections Division #13), 322 Or 15, 55 , 902 P2d 1143 (1995) (Unis, J., dissenting). I would, therefore, dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790763. Public record. Not legal advice.