Case Name: Jeanne HARRIS and Jann Carson, Appellants, v. Phil KEISLING, Secretary of State for the State of Oregon, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2001-03-14
Citations: 173 Or. App. 163
Docket Number: 98C-19263; CA A105892
Parties: Jeanne HARRIS and Jann Carson, Appellants, v. Phil KEISLING, Secretary of State for the State of Oregon, Respondent.
Judges: Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Kistler, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 173
Pages: 163–167

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted February 4, 2000,
appeal dismissed as moot; judgment vacated with instructions March 14,
petition for review denied August 7, 2001 (332 Or 430)
Jeanne HARRIS and Jann Carson, Appellants, v. Phil KEISLING, Secretary of State for the State of Oregon, Respondent.
(98C-19263; CA A105892)
20 P3d 864
Scott L. Garland argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Scott J. Kaplan and Stoel Rives LLP. Charles F. Hinkle, Scott J. Kaplan and Stoel Rives LLP, filed appellants’ response to respondent’s motion to dismiss.
Robert M. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief and on the motion to dismiss were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Kistler, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Armstrong, J., concurring.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant Secretary of State in a case involving a state constitutional challenge to an initiative measure. Plaintiffs assign error to the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment, which was based on the court's conclusion that plaintiffs' constitutional challenge was foreclosed by Schnell v. Appling, 238 Or 202, 395 P2d 113 (1964). After we heard arguments in the case, a majority of Oregon electors voted against the measure at the November 2000 general election. Defendant then moved to dismiss the case as moot. Plaintiffs oppose dismissal on the ground that the case fits into the exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that are capable of repetition yet evading review. Because we have previously concluded that that exception is not available in Oregon, see, e.g., Barnes v. Thompson, 159 Or App 383, 388, 977 P2d 431, rev den 329 Or 447 (1999), we grant defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' appeal as moot.
Appeal dismissed as moot; judgment vacated with instructions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of a jus-ticiable controversy.