State ex rel. Bylander v. Hoss

9 Citing cases

  1. De Young v. Brown

    368 Or. 64 (Or. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    " State ex rel. v. Hoss , 143 Or. 383, 389, 22 P.2d 883 (1933). Although not included in the constitution itself, Oregon's election laws implement the constitutional right to vote in all elections.

  2. Multnomah County v. Mittleman

    275 Or. 545 (Or. 1976)   Cited 18 times
    Rejecting the contention that a constitutional limit on tax measures did not apply to counties through Article VI, section 10, because it referred only to the legislature, not to counties

    See also Cameron v. Stevens, 121 Or. 538, 542, 256 P. 395 (1927). We would also note that in State ex rel. v. Hoss, 143 Or. 383, 22 P.2d 883 (1933), we adopted (at 389), the following rule, which we believe to be pertinent in the construction of these constitutional provisions relating to the "referendum powers" of the people: "Election laws should be liberally construed to the end that the people may have the opportunity of expressing opinion concerning matters of vital interest to their welfare.

  3. Swift Co. and Armour Co. v. Peterson

    192 Or. 97 (Or. 1951)   Cited 36 times
    In Swift Co. and Armour Co. v. Peterson, 192 Or. 97, 233 P.2d 216, Mr. Justice WARNER, speaking for the court, thoroughly analyzed and construed this statute.

    In so doing we may include the title in our consideration. City of Portland v. Duntley, 185 Or. 365, 386, 203 P.2d 640; State ex rel. Bylander v. Hoss, 143 Or. 383, 386, 22 P.2d 883. It is from a combination and application of all these rules that such intent is derived.

  4. City of Portland v. Duntley

    185 Or. 365 (Or. 1949)   Cited 34 times

    The title may not be used to contradict clear provisions in the body of the act; but it is well settled that, where it is necessary to construe ambiguous language, the title of the act, being a part of the statute, can be looked to for the purpose of ascertaining its meaning. State ex rel Bylander v. Hoss, 143 Or. 383, 386, 22 P.2d 883, and cases there cited. See, also, 50 Am. Jur., Statutes, 299, ยง 311; 2 Sutherland, op. cit. 343, ยง 4802.

  5. Seufert v. Stadelman

    178 Or. 646 (Or. 1946)   Cited 20 times
    In Seufert, the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where a city council wished to hold an election on an initiative petition after the date mentioned on the face of the petition.

    29 C.J.S., Elections, section 66, p. 90; Simpson v. Teftler, 176 Ark. 1093, 5 S.W.2d 350. The right of the people to hold an election must be based upon some authority conferred by existing law. 29 C.J.S., Elections, section 66; Munroe v. Wells, 83 Md. 505, 35 A. 142; State ex rel. v. Simon, 20 Or. 365, 26 P. 170; State ex rel. v. Kozer, 115 Or. 638, 239 P. 805; Kneeland v. Multnomah County, 139 Or. 356, 10 P.2d 342; State ex rel. v. Hoss, 143 Or. 383, 22 P.2d 883; Howell v. Bain, 176 Or. 187, 156 P.2d 576. The defendants say that neither the charter nor the ordinances of Dalles City authorize the calling of a special election by the people, and they insist that, in the absence of such authority, the procedure laid down by the state law in such cases must be followed.

  6. School District v. Gleason

    178 Or. 577 (Or. 1946)   Cited 2 times

    It is conceded by both parties that there is no inherent reserved power in the people to hold an election and that to be legal and effective an election must be conducted in accordance with and pursuant to a valid statute authorizing it. State ex rel v. Simon, 20 Or. 365, 26 P. 170; State ex rel v. Kozer, 115 Or. 638, 239 P. 805; Kneeland v. Multnomah Co., 139 Or. 356, 10 P.2d 342; State ex rel v. Hoss, 143 Or. 383, 22 P.2d 883; State ex rel v. Hayworth, 152 Or. 416, 53 P.2d 1048. Defendant contends that there is no statute authorizing the submission of the proposed special tax levy to the electorate or the holding of an election thereon.

  7. Howell v. Bain

    176 Or. 187 (Or. 1945)   Cited 5 times

    Defendant Bain received a plurality of the votes. We agree that an election, in order to be valid, must be authorized by law (State v. Hayworth, 152 Or. 416, 53 P.2d 1048; State ex rel. v. Hoss, 143 Or. 383, 22 P.2d 883; State ex rel. v. Kozer, 115 Or. 638, 239 P. 805) and that there must be some constitutional or statutory authority for filling a vacancy in office notwithstanding it is an elective one: 42 Am.Jur. 975, Public Officers, ยง 130. In other words, an election to fill a vacancy is of no effect where there is no provision in law for it.

  8. Osage Nat. Bank v. Oakes Special School Dist

    7 N.W.2d 920 (N.D. 1943)   Cited 2 times

    Express legislative authority to hold an election is essential to its validity. State v. Hoss (Or) 22 P.2d 883; Barry v. Board (NM) 169 P. 314. A (constitutional) provision that a certain question be submitted to a vote of the electors in the manner that shall be provided by law is not self-executing. 12 CJ pp. 727-735.

  9. Brummell v. Clark

    570 P.2d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 2 times

    Where I differ with the majority is that I believe that this conflict should be resolved in favor of allowing the broadest possible exercise by the people of their constitutional right of initiative. Othus v. Kozer, 119 Or. 101, 248 P. 146 (1926). As our Supreme Court said in State ex rel. v. Hoss, 143 Or. 383, 389, 22 P.2d 883 (1933), in discussing the right of initiative, "Election laws should be liberally construed to the end that the people may have the opportunity of expressing opinion concerning matters of vital interest to their welfare.