State v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 21 October 1980 |
| Citation | 617 P.2d 1376,289 Or. 743 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Appellant-Petitioner, v. Leo ALEXANDER, Respondent-Petitioner. STATE of Oregon, Appellant-Petitioner, v. Clifford ALEXANDER, Respondent-Petitioner. STATE of Oregon, Appellant-Petitioner, v. Michael A. BRISBOIS, Respondent-Petitioner. CA 13568; SC 26909. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
On Review from the Court of Appeals. *
Robert C. Cannon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant-petitioner. With him on the briefs, were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and Walter L. Barrie, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Edward J. Jones, Oregon City, argued the cause for respondent-petitioners. With him on the briefs was Parkinson, Fontana, Schumann & Jones, Oregon City.
The decision of the Court of Appeals, 44 Or.App. 557, 607 P.2d 181, is affirmed for the reasons stated in its decision.
Affirmed.
* Appeal from District Court, Hood River County, John F. Cushman, Judge. 44 Or.App. 557, 607 P.2d 181 (1980).
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
State v. Pepper
...jurisdiction on the Columbia River by this court appears in State v. Alexander, 44 Or.App. 557, 607 P.2d 181, aff'd mem. 289 Or. 743, 617 P.2d 1376 (1980). Oregon had prosecuted the defendants for the same fishing activities on the Columbia River for which Washington had earlier convicted t......
-
State v. Nearing
...to be the accepted view of the reasons for concurrent jurisdiction. State v. Alexander, 44 Or.App. 557, 607 P.2d 181, aff'd, 289 Or. 743, 617 P.2d 1376 (1980). There is little authority on whether concurrent jurisdiction extends to bridges that cross rivers that form state boundaries. In th......
-
State v. Emerson
...Oregon nonsupport proceeding does not violate the statute. State v. Alexander, 44 Or.App. 557, 567, 607 P.2d 181 (1979), aff'd 289 Or. 743, 617 P.2d 1376 (1980). We next examine defendant's contention that Article I, section 12, precludes the prosecution on the basis of former jeopardy. 1 A......