Case Name: BRISTOW ET AL, Appellants, v. THORNTON et al, Respondents
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1968-02-28
Citations: 249 Or. 294
Docket Number: 
Parties: BRISTOW ET AL, Appellants, v. THORNTON et al, Respondents.
Judges: Before Perry, Chief Justice, and McAllister, Sloan, O’Connell, Goodwin, Denecke and Holman, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 249
Pages: 294–296

Head Matter:
Argued February 23,
Attorney General’s Ballot Title affirmed February 28, 1968
BRISTOW ET AL, Appellants, v. THORNTON et al, Respondents.
437 P. 2d 825
Robert C. MacDonald, Astoria, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were MacDonald, Dean & McCallister, Astoria.
Peter S. Herman, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General, Salem.
Before Perry, Chief Justice, and McAllister, Sloan, O’Connell, Goodwin, Denecke and Holman, Justices.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, being dissatisfied with the ballot title prepared by the attorney general for an initiative measure filed with the Secretary of State, have appealed.
Their argument on appeal is that the title as prepared violates the spirit of OES 254.070.
We have carefully examined the ballot title prepared by the attorney general and are of the opinion that the title as prepared is in compliance with the statutes.
The attorney general's ballot title is affirmed.