Willamette Law Online

Oregon Supreme Court


ListPreviousNext


Green v. Kroger

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: 03-15-2012
Case #: S060086
Kistler, J. for the Court; En Banc.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/sites/Publications/S060086.pdf

Ballot Titles: Under ORS 250.085, the Supreme Court may review arguments concerning language that was removed from the title after the comment period had ended. Further, the language "corporate income" is misleading when it is meant to refer solely to taxable income.

Petitioners (Green) challenged the language in Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) that would alter an aspect of Measure 67. Measure 67 modified the rate that corporations pay on their taxable income. The language in IP 28 referred to "corporate income," rather than specifically "taxable income." Green claimed this variation in the language is misleading because it does not specify that the tax would only be applied to corporate profits. Kroger, the Attorney General, argued Green did not challenge the term "corporate income" until after the comment period had ended. However, Kroger did not remove the word "taxable" until after the certified ballot was issued. The Supreme Court found that, under ORS 250.085, the Court may review language that was specifically altered after the comment period. Further, the Court held that the language "corporate income" is misleading. Ballot title referred to the Attorney General for modification.