resources
SEARCH  
 

OREGON

 

Cox v. State of Oregon, 191 Ore. App. 1, 80 P.3d 514 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of this action brought by parents of students in the state's education service districts (geographical entities that provide services for schools such as audits, staff development, and special programs), ruling that the state’s method of funding these districts did not violate the state constitution’s equal privileges and immunities clause.  The court ruled that the plaintiff parents were not members of a suspect class, and in any event the state’s funding system had a rational basis.

 

Withers v. State of Oregon, 163 Ore. App. 298, 987 P.2d 1247 (Or. Ct. App. 1999) (“Withers II”), review denied 331 Ore. 284, 18 P.3d 1101 (Or. 2000).

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of this case, in which plaintiffs sought a “supplemental declaratory judgment” against the state’s decision to phase in its new system of school finance.  The court ruled that the system adopted by the state legislature had the rational purpose of attaining equal funding without inflicting major cutbacks on wealthier school districts, and thus, the legislation was upheld under the equal privileges and immunities provision of the state constitution.


Withers v. State of Oregon, 133 Ore. App. 377, 891 P.2d 675 (Ore. Ct. App. 1995) (“Withers I”), review denied 321 Ore. 284, 896 P.2d 1213 (Or. 1995).

The state court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of this action, ruling that the disparities in funding and educational opportunities alleged by plaintiffs did not violate the state constitutional requirement of a uniform public education system or the equal privileges and immunities clause, and further ruling that the state’s decision to phase in its new school funding system, rather than implement it immediately, did not violate the state equal privileges and immunities clause or the equal protection clause of the federal constitution. 

 

Coal. for Equitable Sch. Funding, Inc. v. State of Oregon, 311 Ore. 300, 811 P.2d 116 (Or. 1991).

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the state's method of funding public schools, which resulted in disparities among school districts in financial benefits and tax burdens, did not violate the state constitutional provision establishing a uniform and general system of common schools, the provision requiring uniform taxation or the equal privileges and immunities clause.  The Court found that the financing system was valid under the “safety net” provision of the state constitution, which, it ruled, governed school districts' levying of property taxes for operating purposes.  

 

Olsen v. State of Oregon, 276 Ore. 9, 554 P.2d 139 (Or. 1976).

The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the state’s system of school finance, ruling that the fact that some districts had less local control than others because of the disparity in property tax values did not amount to a violation of the equal privileges and immunities clause of the state constitutional or the provision requiring that the legislative assembly provide for the establishment of a uniform and general system of common schools.