State v. Woodcock
| Decision Date | 28 January 1986 |
| Citation | 300 Or. 506,713 P.2d 1059 |
| Parties | State v. Woodcock (William C.) NOS. A34352, S32325 |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
State v. Henry
... ... See State v. Robertson, supra; State v. Woodcock, 75 Or.App. 659, 706 P.2d 1012 (1985), rev.den. 300 Or. 506, 713 P.2d 1059 (1986) ... Finally, defendant contends that ORS 167.087 is unconstitutional, because Article I, section 8, flatly bans the enactment of legislation directed to the substance of communication. This ... ...
-
State v. Maynard
... ... Our prior opinions have recognized that pornographic materials have a deleterious effect on the health [138 Or.App. 676] and welfare of minors without the benefit of the legislature expressing the harm that could occur in the language of the statute. In State v. Woodcock, 75 Or.App. 659, 662, 706 P.2d 1012 (1985), rev. den. 300 Or. 506, 713 P.2d 1059 (1986), and in State v. Frink, 60 Or.App. 209, 212, 653 P.2d 553 (1982), we specifically noted that the dissemination of obscene materials to minors is a more limited right than that with respect to adults, and the ... ...
-
State v. Maynard
... ... See 289 Or. at 228, 611 P.2d 1147 .' 293 Or. at 413 n. 10, 649 P.2d 569 ." Id. at 215, 653 P.2d 553 ... We reaffirmed the reasoning of Frink in State v. Woodcock, 75 Or.App. 659, 706 P.2d 1012 (1985), rev. den. 300 Or. 506, 713 P.2d 1059 (1986). There, the defendant sold lapel buttons to minors containing slogans that were obscene. Once more, the state relied on ORS 167.085, this time to meet an overbreadth challenge to ORS 167.065(1)(b), which ... ...