Case Title: Pendleton School Dist. v. State of Oregon

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2009-11-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
FILED: November 27, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
PENDLETON SCHOOL DISTRICT 16R;
EUGENE SCHOOL DISTRICT 4J; CROW-APPLEGATE-LORANE SCHOOL DISTRICT 66;
COOS BAY
SCHOOL DISTRICT 9; CORVALLIS SCHOOL DISTRICT 509J;
JOSEPHINE COUNTY UNIT/THREE
RIVERS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ASTORIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 1C;
CRESWELL SCHOOL DISTRICT;
LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT;
SIUSLAW SCHOOL DISTRICT 97J; CENTENNIAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT;
AMITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 4J; REYNOLDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #7;
COQUILLE
SCHOOL DISTRICT #8; PARKROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT #3;
PINE EAGLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
#61; JEFFERSON SCHOOL DISTRICT; 
MCKENZIE SCHOOL DISTRICT;
ALEXANDRA KIESLING
and TIMOTHY KIESLING, minors,
by Amy Cuddy, 
their guardian ad litem;
GRACE
PEYERWOLD, a minor,
by David and Maria Peyerwold, 
her guardians ad litem;
MARSHALL TAUNTON and HARRISON TAUNTON, minors,
by Tim and Wendy Taunton, 
their
guardians ad litem;
and BENJAMIN SHERMAN and CLAIRE SHERMAN, minors,
by Larry
Sherman and Diane Nichol, 
their guardians ad litem, 
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Petitioners
on Review,
v.
STATE OF OREGON,
Defendant-Respondent,
Respondent
on Review.
(CC 0603-02980; CA A133649;
SC S056096)
En Banc
On petitioners'
petition for reconsideration of opinion regarding attorney fees and costs.*
James N. Westwood and Robert D.
Van Brocklin, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, filed the petition for reconsideration
for petitioners on review.
No
appearance contra.
PER
CURIAM
The petition for
reconsideration is allowed.  The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.
*347 Or 28, 217 P3d
175 (2009).
PER CURIAM
Petitioners seek reconsideration of
this court's opinion in Pendleton School Dist. v. State of Oregon, 347
Or 28, 217 P3d 175 (2009) (Pendleton II).  Specifically, petitioners
object to the inclusion of a particular sentence in the majority opinion in
that case.  In that sentence, the majority characterized a part of this court's
earlier opinion in Pendleton School Dist. v. State of Oregon, 345 Or 596,
200 P3d 133 (2009) (Pendleton I) as follows:
"[T]he court also ruled that the provision in Article
VIII, section 8, [of the Oregon Constitution,] contemplating a report from the
legislature explaining its failure to fund education at the required level
(when and if that was the case) is a permissible constitutional alternative to
following the constitutional mandate [requiring a certain level of educational
funding]."
Pendleton II, 347 Or at 32-22 (summarizing outcome in Pendleton
I).  Petitioners assert that the foregoing sentence is a misstatement of a
part of the holding in Pendleton I, and that it should be revised.
Petitioners are correct.  The
challenged sentence does inadvertently misstate a part of the court's holding
in Pendleton I.  We therefore withdraw the sentence and insert in its
place the sentence set out below.  The substituted sentence is not the precise
one requested by petitioners, but we believe that it preserves the legal point that
they make.
The substituted sentence is as follows:
"However, the court also ruled that the provision in
Article VIII, section 8, contemplating a report from the legislature explaining
its failure to fund education at the required level (when and if that was the
case) prevented the court from enjoining the legislature to provide the
constitutionally mandated level of funding."
See Pendleton I, 345 Or at 611 (declaration or
injunction of kind sought by petitioners "would not be consistent with the
reporting requirement").
The petition for reconsideration is
allowed.  The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.