State v. Cantwell
| Citation | 681 P.2d 134,297 Or. 124 |
| Parties | State v. Cantwell (James Dean) NOS. S30484, A28712 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1984 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
To continue reading
Request your trial
17 cases
-
State v. Meyer
... ... Cascade Fireworks v. State of Oregon, 86 Or.App. 355, 358, 738 P.2d 1013 (1987) ... When reviewing an assertion of vagueness, it is this court's duty to construe the statute to salvage its constitutionality, if possible. State v. Cantwell, 66 Or.App. 848, 853, 676 P.2d 353, rev. den. 297 Or. 124, 681 P.2d 134 (1984). We start from the premise that, "in performing its law-making role, the legislature intends to act within constitutional bounds." State v. Cornell/Pinnell, 304 Or. 27, 31, 741 P.2d 501 (1987). Although [120 Or.App ... ...
-
Sekne v. City of Portland
... ... State law to allow dancing or have other forms of entertainment, it is unlawful for stage or floor show entertainer: ... "(1) To come into physical contact ... 640] Robertson, supra, 293 Or. at 411, 649 P.2d 569, and whether its invalid parts, if any, can be severed from the rest. State v. Cantwell, 66 Or.App. 848, 852, 676 P.2d 353, rev. den. 297 Or. 124, 681 P.2d 134 (1984). PCC 14.36.010 prohibits dance if the dancer exposes his or her ... ...
-
City of Eugene v. Lee
... ... for disorderly conduct under Eugene City Code ECC section 4.725, arguing that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to him, under state and federal constitutional provisions protecting his rights to free speech and free religious exercise. We do not reach defendant's arguments ... Cantwell, 66 Or.App. 848, 852, 676 P.2d 353, rev. den. 297 Or. 124, 681 P.2d 134 (1984), we rejected a facial challenge to this portion of the disorderly ... ...
-
State v. Atwood
... ... As described below, with respect to the first count, we conclude that the evidence was legally insufficient to allow a trier of fact to infer that defendant engaged in "violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior" within the meaning of ORS 166.025(1)(a), as construed in State v. Cantwell, 66 Or.App. 848, 676 P.2d 353, rev. den., 297 Or. 124, 681 P.2d 134 (1984). In particular, the evidence could not support a determination that defendant had engaged in the "the use of physical force or physical conduct which is immediately likely to produce the use of such force[.]" Id. at 853, 676 ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results